The residential transformation of St Kilda Road is set to continue into with more new apartment plans for the sought-after boulevard.

Wing Tai Asia has lodged plans for a major residential tower at 464-466 St Kilda Road, replacing the former VACC House with an 18-storey mixed-use development designed around a retained heritage podium and a sculpted contemporary tower.

The proposal, prepared under Victoria’s Significant Residential Development with Affordable Housing pathway, would deliver 325 apartments and ground-floor retail across the prominent 4,653 sqm boulevard site in Melbourne’s St Kilda Road North Precinct.

The project centres on the adaptive reuse of the site’s heritage-listed VACC Building, an eight-storey office designed by Bernard Evans that has occupied the address for decades. Planning documents state the development would involve “carefully dismantling and conserving off-site the original metal fabric of the podium visible from St Kilda Road,” before reinstating it as the defining frontage of the new scheme.

Above the restored podium, Wing Tai is proposing a curvilinear residential tower. The scheme includes 172 one-bedroom apartments, 63 two-bedroom apartments, 66 three-bedroom apartments, and 24 four-bedroom apartments, alongside two ground-floor food and beverage tenancies fronting St Kilda Road.

The tower has been designed with substantial articulation and variable setbacks to minimise perceived bulk and maintain view corridors along the boulevard. Urbis, which prepared the planning report, said the design “has been significantly articulated through a curvilinear design” with “an interplay with materials, façade expression and depth” to create visual separation and visual interest.

The proposal also includes 254 basement car spaces, landscaped pedestrian links connecting St Kilda Road and Queens Lane, and a biophilic landscape strategy featuring canopy trees, raised planters, cascading greenery and a glass oculus pool overlooking the eastern frontage.

Planning documents confirm the $270.1 million development will contribute 3 per cent of project costs to the Social Housing Growth Fund as part of the application process.

Wing Tai acquired the St Kilda Road property in 2018 alongside Abacus Property Group for $95.38 million, before later consolidating ownership of the site. The property previously served as the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce headquarters for around 60 years.

The transformation of the St Kilda Rd boulevard is already beginning to materialise, with a number of high-profile projects recently completed, launched, or approaching launch as developers continue to back the long-term appeal of the precinct.

Among the most notable recent completions is Louise by Samuel Property Group, just off the strip on Queens Lane, the same pocket Hirsch &amp; Faigen recently launched The Queensbury. Mirvac is too on the same street with The Albertine, which is approaching completion.

Dexus recently secured approval for its slice of St Kilda Road, while Gurner also has approved plans for the precinct.

Joel Robinson

Wing Tai unveils 325-apartment St Kilda Road tower on former VACC House site

Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" dir="auto">
<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-2" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" dir="auto">
The arrival of the first piling rig officially marks the commencement of construction at SIERA’s new beachside apartment development, Exhale, in Northcliffe.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/exhale-surfers-paradise-8-enderley-avenue-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Exhale</a>, a glass-encased tower featuring 54 large-scale apartments at 8 Enderley Avenue, is SIERA’s third Gold Coast development. It follows the recently completed PIPIS Bilinga beachfront project, which achieved suburb-record prices, and the soon-to-be-completed Chevron Island development, Tapestry.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359603]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/siera">SIERA</a> Founder and Managing Director Brent Thompson said the arrival of the piling rig represented a significant milestone for the development, which is scheduled for completion in late 2028.

Over the next month, around 260 piles are expected to be installed as work progresses on the basement structure. The building is anticipated to rise above ground level early next year, before unveiling its sculptural glass curtain wall, developed in collaboration with specialist façade engineers.

“The façade was designed to maximise panoramic coastal views while creating a distinctive architectural identity,” Thompson said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=355935]

Designed by BDA Architecture, Exhale will comprise just 54 two- and three-bedroom residences across 26 levels, a level of low-density living rarely delivered in this beachside pocket between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach.

The project has been conceived as a resident-only building, with no short-stay accommodation permitted. SIERA says the model is intended to appeal to long-term owner-occupiers rather than transient holiday demand.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=361052]

Residences have been designed with large-format layouts and expansive glazing, with most apartments featuring more than 30 metres of glass frontage to maximise natural light and ocean views.

The amenity offering spans two levels and centres on wellness and lifestyle, including a heated magnesium pool, sauna, yoga and Pilates studio, gymnasium, private dining facilities, cinema lounge, and dedicated surfcraft storage.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359607]

More than half of the apartments have already sold. SIERA has also opened a sales gallery for Exhale at its Chevron Island commercial premises, near its Tapestry tower and the site of its second Chevron Island apartment development, which is slated to launch in early 2027.
</section>
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112661]

SIERA kicks off construction at Northcliffe tower Exhale

Public Transport

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65247/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
At first glance you’d be forgiven for thinking the new Sydney Metro rail line will turn the suburbs between Sydenham and Bankstown into an urban paradise.
Amid cheerful community facilities and cycle paths, the Department of Planning’s zoning brochure shows a colourful mass of new higher-density zones. Every town centre along the route – including Campsie, Lakemba, Canterbury and Belmore – is in line for a facelift. A raft of new apartment towers, pavement cafes and boutiques will crowd around the Metro stations.
All cities need renewal and no-one would argue that this part of Sydney isn’t crying out for it. However, the Baird government needs to explain what the changes will mean for existing residents. Compared with the rest of the city, they are typically poor, older and renters. What’s in it for them?
And who’ll profit from the value uplift that will flow from the massive investment of taxpayers’ funds, both from higher land values resulting from the new density and from being snug up against a new Metro line?
These are just two of the outstanding questions to which the government should already have articulated some answers. That’s because, as each day passes, developers are doing their maths based on the existing scenario set out by the Department of Planning. Soon it will be too late to retrofit any changes.
<h2>Where do existing residents fit in?</h2>
To understand the reality, it’s worth taking a closer look at the area along this stretch of the new Metro.
The Sydenham-to-Canterbury corridor is home to one of the largest concentrations of lower-income renters in Sydney, compounded by a large population of retirees on fixed, low incomes. Gentrification, the driver for urban renewal across much of Sydney, has not come knocking on these doors – yet.
So, what percentage of the 36,000 new apartments and other dwellings along the renewal corridor has been allocated for affordable housing? We can be sure they won’t be pitched at the pockets of those who live there now.
And as new investment comes in, so rents will rise. Without a significant affordable housing component, many of the essential workers who live there today – the mechanics, care attendants and shop workers – will be pushed further towards Sydney’s periphery. That will leave the rest of the city struggling to get the lower-paid workforce it needs to function productively.
In comparable renewal projects in cities like London and New York, a significant proportion of new stock is set aside as affordable housing, precisely to avoid such problems. It’s accepted as completely reasonable that lower-income working families should also benefit from new housing delivered as a result of public investment.
The Baird government must make it clear to developers exactly what proportion of the new homes will be set aside for this purpose – and quickly. The case for a zoning policy that mandates a proportion of all new homes as affordable has never been clearer.
The government also needs to show us where it is placing services, such as the new schools that the expanded population will need. With the government’s zoning map not identifying where these services will go, land-owners will rightly question any subsequent proposal for a school or park that would diminish their profits from possible residential development.
The government has not yet provided any explanation of the expected amount of the massive value uplift that will come from the Metro and all the amenity upgrades.
Nor have we been told whether any of it will be used to fund the Metro itself or investment in the infrastructure that will be needed to make this extensive new precinct vibrant and liveable – let alone whether it will be used to provide for affordable housing.
<h2>A model for inclusive renewal</h2>
Let me suggest a way the government can tackle all this.
We need a new model of inclusive renewal. Why not establish an arm’s-length, non-profit corporation to work in consortia or joint ventures with councils, landowners, businesses, residents (particularly in older strata properties), developers and the community housing sector?
Innovative funding for new infrastructure could come through hypothecated value-capture mechanisms. These could take the form of up-front levies on land and property sales and public borrowing supported by the increased local rates that will be collected. In this way the value uplift will be properly shared and paid for over the longer term.
Planning should be devolved to the newly amalgamated council in line with the district plans being drawn up by the Greater Sydney Commission. Affordable housing would be the responsibility of community housing providers, working with developers and the new agency. The model would also apply to other town centre and corridor renewal projects.
The new Sydney Metro promises a revolution in mass transit. However, the accompanying renewal of this corridor will affect one of the most socially and economically disadvantaged communities in Sydney. Perpetuating – or indeed enhancing – that disadvantage through wide-scale displacement and unaffordable apartment building would be disastrous.
This new urban paradise must not be just for those with deep pockets.
Bill Randolph is director, City Futures - Faculty Leadership, City Futures Research Centre, Urban Analytics and City Data, Infrastructure in the Built Environment, UNSW Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bill-randolph-147968" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Sydney Metro's Sydenham-to-Bankstown line – nirvana or nightmare?

<html><body>
New REIV data suggests it’s possible to save hundreds of thousands of dollars by purchasing in the next suburb along the train line.
The Sandringham line recorded the city’s largest price difference between stations with homes in Brighton Beach ($2,715,000) almost a million dollars more expensive than in neighbouring Hampton ($1,765,000).  
Significant savings of $885,000 were also possible for homebuyers who bought a home in Chatham, rather than the previous station on the Belgrave line, Canterbury. 
For a few more minutes on the Lilydale line, buyers could save more than $500,000 by buying a home in Box Hill instead of the previous suburb, Mont Albert.
Meanwhile, similar savings were evident on the Craigieburn service with commuters able to save almost $450,000 by purchasing one stop further along the train line in Pascoe Vale, rather than Strathmore.  
A substantial price difference of $420,000 was also recorded on the Frankston line between Patterson (1,357,500) and Moorabbin ($937,500).
REIV CEO Geoff White said a number of top commuter suburbs delivered significant savings for buyers seeking value within easy commuting distance of the city. 
“These areas enable buyers to enter the market at a much more affordable rate without really compromising on travelling time to the CBD,” Mr White said.
“Homebuyers willing to live in a suburb just one stop further along the train line can save themselves a significant six-figure sum.”
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

The next train stop - how to spend less by buying further out of Melbourne

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/64233/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A new report, commissioned by the Australian Automobile Association and compiled by SGS Economics and Planning, has estimated transport costs for a typical household in Australia’s capital cities.
The calculations factored in public transport spending and car costs such as registration, fuel, insurance and tolls.
In a media release accompanying the report, the Australian Automobile Association said that “the average Australian family is spending up to $22,000 every year to get around.”
Is that accurate?
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
The Conversation asked SGS Economics and Planning and the Australian Automobile Association to clarify several aspects of their calculations. You can read their full response here.
The SGS Economics and Planning full report explains in detail the assumptions that underpin their snapshot of transport costs for a typical household in Australia’s capital cities.
Their hypothetical household in each capital city featured a couple in their 30s with children. The adults were employed, lived in a detached house and had two cars, which were driven 15,000 and 10,000 kilometres per year. The car that drives 10,000 kilometres per year is assumed to be ten years old and owned outright. The car that drives 15,000 kilometres per year is assumed to be less than three years old, purchased new and financed with a car loan. In addition, one member of the household is assumed to travel by public transport into the CBD and home again, five days a week.
In each city, the hypothetical household is assumed to live in middle to outer ring suburbs, with a relatively high population density, good access to public transport, and – in the case of the Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane householders – use toll roads to access the CBD.
These assumptions and estimates contained in the report appear valid to me. Overall, the report seems to be a reasonable attempt to deconstruct transportation costs. Assumptions about both cars being used for more than 10,000 kilometres per year while one person commutes daily via public transport could be questioned, but this would only make a difference at the margins.
<h2>Report finds national average annual transport cost is closer to $17,000</h2>
The Australian Automobile Association said the report “reveals the average Australian family is spending up to $22,000 every year to get around” – but the key phrase there is up to.
The authors of the report looked at two consecutive quarters of transport data – Q1 of 2016 (quarter one, January to March) and Q2 of 2016 (quarter two, April to June). The report found that:
Annualised figures reveal a total transport cost for Q2 of $21,791 in Sydney, while the annual cost for Hobart is $7,691 less, at $14,100.
So the figure of $22,000 relates to Sydney, not the national average. The higher costs in Sydney relate to tolls, registration and compulsory third party insurance, the report said.
In fact, the researchers estimated that the national average transport cost for the second quarter of 2016 is around $323.36 a week, or an annual national average of $16,814.72, as shown in this table from the report:
<h4><a href="/images/2016/08/29/image-20160822-30370-cazbbd.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></h4>
<img src="/images/2016/08/29/image-20160822-30370-cazbbd.png" alt="">
 
Household total weekly transport costs, Transport Affordability Index: August 2016. Transport Affordability Index: August 2016, SGS Economics and Planning.
So the Australian Automobile Association’s assertion that the report reveals the average Australian family is spending up to $22,000 every year to get around is correct – but just remember that’s the upper end of the estimates range detailed in the report, as this chart shows:
<h4><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/134905/area14mp/image-20160822-30403-176wdv4.png" style="font-size: 1em;"></a></h4>
<h4><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/134905/area14mp/image-20160822-30403-176wdv4.png" style="font-size: 1em;"></a></h4>
<h4><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/134905/area14mp/image-20160822-30403-176wdv4.png" style="font-size: 1em;"></a></h4>
<h4><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/134905/area14mp/image-20160822-30403-176wdv4.png" style="font-size: 1em;"></a></h4>
<h4><a href="/images/2016/08/29/image-20160822-30403-176wdv4.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></h4>
<img src="/images/2016/08/29/image-20160822-30403-176wdv4.png" alt="">
<h4>
Household total weekly transport costs SGS Economics and Planning 
</h4>
The report found that the national average annual spend on transport is closer to $16,814 or $17,000 if you round up.
<h2>Checking the numbers against other sources</h2>
The report’s estimate of roughly $17,000 in annual household transport costs for the national average is higher than transport cost estimates produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
But it’s not uncommon for different economic models to produce different results – it all depends on what assumptions you factor into the modelling.
The last Household Expenditure Survey, conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2009-2010, indicated that Australians spent an average of $193 per week on transport expenses. After adjusting for inflation, that is the equivalent of $221 per week in 2016, or $11,531 per year.
Included in the ABS survey’s definition of transport costs is motor vehicle purchase, fuel, registration, insurance, parts, public transport fares and several other expenses.
In their response to The Conversation, SGS Economics and Planning said the discrepancy was partly because the ABS' Household Expenditure Survey:
"includes figures on transport costs from a range of households, from couple families with kids in the outer suburbs to inner-city singles who rarely drive to regional pensioners… We chose to focus on couple families with children and the costs they are likely to face as they are the most common family type in Australia… Couples with children are likely to have higher transport costs than other family types such as singles, single parents or couples without children, as they are larger and more likely to be working."
You can read more of their response <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-sgs-economics-and-planning-64308" target="_blank">here</a>.
The ABS data treats the major part of a car purchase as an asset (i.e. is not included in expenses related to travel), so if you treat household motor vehicles as a cost rather than an asset you can get a number that approaches the annual figure in the recent SGS Economics and Planning report.
The report assumes regular toll road usage in the capital cities, which, of course, doesn’t apply to all of us. And it also makes the debatable assumption that one member of the household uses public transport regularly while another member uses toll roads with similar regularity.
Naturally, the biggest contributor to overall costs may be how expensive your car or cars are (and, thus, any associated repayments), the level of which is largely at the discretion of the household.
<h2>Verdict</h2>
Overall, the SGS Economics and Planning report appears to be a reasonable attempt to deconstruct transportation costs, but is specific to a particular type of household within each city rather than all households who travel.
The Australian Automobile Association’s statement that the report “reveals the average Australian family is spending up to $22,000 every year to get around” is technically accurate, thanks to the inclusion of the qualifier “up to”.
However, it is worth noting that the $22,000 figure (which applies to a typical Sydney family) represents the highest end of the range of estimates contained in the report.
The report found that the national average annual spend on transport is closer to around $17,000, which is higher than transport cost estimates produced by the ABS in the past. 
Review
I agree with this FactCheck and its conclusion.
The really important missing cost is the time lost to travel, especially when it is over one hour per day. Marchetti’s constant, a concept based on the research of Italian physicist Cesare Marchetti, posits that anything more than an hour of travel time per day is problematic.
It would be interesting to compare options than the hypothetical “average Australian household” example given in the report. For example, both the dollar costs and time costs in Australia could be reduced by having one fewer car for the average family, and living in a location that allows that option to become viable.
My own research suggests that many cities around the world are increasingly opting for greater investment in public transport and higher density urban redevelopment, rather than building housing on the fringes of cities where houses cost less but transport costs are huge. – Peter Newman
Matthew Beck is senior lecturer in Infrastructure Management, University of Sydney an author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/matthew-beck-90705" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Does the average Australian family spend up to $22,000 every year on transport?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Come election time, voters could be forgiven for seeing transport infrastructure as a slush fund. Politicians insist they’re all for sound economic management, but we might well be cynical about how much that really matters in the race to win votes.
The main parties have made big commitments to transport in this campaign. The Coalition has promised A$5.4 billion, Labor A$6.7 billionand the Greens A$6.5 billion.
The 2016 election follows the pattern of the past decade where more money is promised in Queensland than in any other state. Grattan Institute’s recent report, Roads to Riches, found that over the past decade Queensland received a disproportionate share of Commonwealth transport investment – in aggregate, per head, and compared to its relative need as a state.
<a href="/images/2016/06/27/image-20160623-30259-1ls4uzj.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="/images/2016/06/27/image-20160623-30259-1ls4uzj.png" alt=""></h4>
<div class="enlarge_hint"> </div>
<h2>A lack of consensus?</h2>
Line up the parties’ election promises against the others, though, and it’s remarkable how little consensus there is.
In New South Wales, only about 15% of the promised money has been pledged by more than one party.
There is not one project that all three parties have promised to build, and not one project that both the Coalition and the Greens have committed to.
We once had no way of knowing a good project from a bad one, but that was before the federal government set up Infrastructure Australia. It is charged with assuring the quality of government investment by assessing business cases against a national significance test. Generally, these business cases are for projects where state governments want a Commonwealth funding contribution.
Sometimes Infrastructure Australia identifies gaps on its own initiative. It is only involved in projects that are both nationally significant and worth more than $100 million.
The funding proposals are sorted into three categories:
<ul>
<li>
If there is a full business case and the proposal is worth doing, it is classed as a “project”. An example is the WestConnex motorway in Sydney.
</li>
<li>
If there is a full business case but the project is not worth doing, it is not classified but Infrastructure Australia publishes the evaluation on its website. An example is the Winchelsea to Colac road duplication, with an extraordinarily low benefit-cost ratio of 0.08 – that is, only eight cents worth of value for every dollar spent.
</li>
<li>
If there is not yet a full assessed business case, the proposal is classed as an “initiative”; the Melbourne Metro Rail proposal, for example.
</li>
</ul>
It should be simple. All parties should commit to the “project” list – in part or in full – and then stop spending. These “projects” have been properly assessed and found to be worth doing, and specifically worth doing by the federal government because they have some national significance.
But that is not what is happening. The Coalition, Labor and the Greens are making substantial commitments to projects that not only lack proper business cases, but are not even on the Infrastructure Australia priority list at all. This includes projects like:
<ul>
<li>
the Walkerston Bypass in Queensland ($150 million from Labor) and the Townsville Ring Road and related infrastructure ($900 million from the Coalition), which could not even under the most charitable definition be described as nationally significant;
</li>
<li>
the duplication of the Princes Highway from Winchelsea to Colac in Victoria (to which the Coalition has promised $181 million), which Infrastructure Australia has rejected as not worth doing; and
</li>
<li>
small projects, such as a $32 million roundabout upgrade at Hobart Airport promised by Labor, that are not subject to the Infrastructure Australia assessment, or often to any other evaluation either.
</li>
</ul>
Almost all the funding promised by all parties is for proposals that lack a proper business case. Some of this spending may turn out to be worth doing; much will not. Only a small share of it is for projects that we know to be worth doing.
The Coalition’s spending is more aligned with the projects we know to be worth doing than the other parties’, and Labor’s is slightly better aligned than the Greens’.
<a href="/images/2016/06/27/image-20160623-30289-w5j724.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/06/27/image-20160623-30289-w5j724.png" alt="">
If the parties were to commit to the whole list of projects that we know to be worth doing, it wouldn’t send us broke. Only seven items have been classified as “projects”. These are the WestConnex motorway and the M4 motorway upgrade in NSW, the Ipswich Motorway and the M1 Pacific Motorway in Queensland, the Perth Freight link and the Mitchell Freeway extension in Western Australia, and Brisbane-to-Melbourne inland rail.
Some are certainly expensive, but so too are many other proposals of uncertain value that parties have committed to anyway.
It turns out that all parties have ignored or shunned projects that we know to be worth doing. Two of the seven worthwhile “projects” have no support from any party in this campaign. These are the M4 motorway upgrade and the Mitchell Freeway extension.
<a href="/images/2016/06/27/image-20160623-30283-af54jk.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<div class="enlarge_hint"><img src="/images/2016/06/27/image-20160623-30283-af54jk.png" alt=""></div>
<h2>Why parties pick the wrong projects</h2>
Failing to choose these projects seems like not bothering to pick up $50 notes from the floor. Why do parties do this?
A big clue lies in the state breakdowns. All parties want to spread their spending around, unless the state or territory in question offers no electoral advantage. But the projects known to be worth doing are spread unevenly – two are in NSW, two in Queensland, two in Western Australia and one is national.
<h4><a href="/images/2016/06/27/image-20160623-30259-fol9rt.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></h4>
<img src="/images/2016/06/27/image-20160623-30259-fol9rt.png" alt="">
<div class="enlarge_hint"> </div>
Another clue is that parties want to spend in the regions, but most proposals that stack up are based in major cities, improving commuting and connections with ports and airports.
Most of Infrastructure Australia’s “project” assessments are urban. The NSW projects are both in Sydney. The Queensland projects are in Ipswich and a link between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. The Western Australian projects are road projects substantially centred on Perth. The sole non-urban project is rail, running from Brisbane to Melbourne via inland NSW.
A third clue lies in the mode of transport that the parties favour. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s enthusiasm for public transport notwithstanding, the Coalition tends to choose road over rail more than Labor does.
The Greens have taken the approach of committing to one major public transport project in every capital city – none of which have been classified as “projects” by Infrastructure Australia, and most of which are not even on its initiative list.
A fourth clue lies in project size. The Coalition and Labor have both promised a large number of small projects on top of their big commitments. By contrast, the Greens have only their major capital city public transport proposals, although they would probably support a government seeking to advance proposals such as the Gold Coast light rail.
<h2>It doesn’t have to be this way</h2>
All three major parties exhibit a big gap between what they say and what they do. All claim to support proper process, both to get the infrastructure needed and to spend money wisely.
The parties may well excuse their bad habits by saying the voters seem to like them. On one level this is true – if you are the direct beneficiary of a new road-widening project on a country highway, or if you travel to the airport regularly but don’t like buses, you may understandably support the candidate offering the big new road or the airport rail link.
By contrast, the losers are dispersed, and the boondoggles are paid for by worthwhile projects that are never built.
Australia doesn’t have to guess what transport infrastructure to build – it has a process that determines the answer. Cost-benefit analysis, with all its imperfections, remains the one way we can compare projects on a like-for-like basis.
Marion Terrill is transport program director, Grattan Institute, and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marion-terrill-169480" target="_blank">here.</a>
<div class="content-authors-group"><ol>
<li id="author-130423" class="vcard">
 
</li>
</ol></div>
</body></html>

Will the election 2016 infrastructure promises meet Australia's needs?

How property prices and growth rates compare across Sydney's train network: Domain

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Cities are complex systems, some may even say messy systems. Many independent and concurrent decisions shape the experience, form and opportunities in a city. And many stakeholders have their views, their data and their interests without necessarily sharing with others.
Let us try to systematise the mess. A city consists of the physical, tangible, mostly immovable environment, the social component of people, institutions, workplaces or public transport, and the information infrastructure, from smartphones and urban dashboards to traffic counters and traffic lights.
The relationship of the physical, the social and information (the virtual) forms a triangle: people make decisions and interact with the world (for example, moving around, building); they consult with information systems (location-based services, taxi apps or maps); and information systems control parts of the world (building access, bus preference at intersections, or dynamic road pricing) and interact with people (for example, pushing messages).
 
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/102562/width668/image-20151119-18441-m4wjj1.png" alt=""> 
 
<h2>Highly connected but often hidden</h2>
Embedded in this picture is already a degree of connectivity unheard of only a couple of years ago. A rapid transformation of our cities is happening. This consists of three components: urban sensing, urban analytics and urban interaction. Each of these tells fascinating stories, and yet each is more or less hidden from attention.
Three short examples illustrate the potential of urban connectedness:
<ul>
<li>
Connected vehicles communicate with each other or with other transport infrastructure about their presence and intentions, thus allowing for early braking, avoiding congestion, or ad-hoc ride-sharing.
</li>
<li>
Smart waste bins sense their load and allow for optimising the routes of waste-collection teams, saving the cities significant dollars.
</li>
<li>
Open data provides access for citizens and entrepreneurs, enabling public participation as much as transparency and empowerment.
</li>
</ul>
How do we make use of this new level of connectedness? As an example, imagine you want to visit a market in the CBD on a Saturday.
Your first thought is to drive to the market, but you face the challenge of where to find a parking spot. Online services are starting to emerge that provide real-time data streams about where free parking spaces are available.
However, this information may just increase the traffic congestion as everyone heads for the same parking spot. What we need is the ability to harness these new sensor data streams using predictive analytics, which can predict when and where parking spaces are likely to be free soon.
Taking this a step further, we can envisage services that recommend the best time to leave home, or when to switch modes of transport. Rather than queueing for a parking spot at the market, we are advised to take advantage of cheaper parking spaces in the financial district (which is quiet on the weekend) and then take a free tram to the market.
<h2>Balancing access and privacy</h2>
These types of data-driven services have the potential to transform the way we interact with our city. And yet we need a critical consideration of unintended consequences, intrusion of privacy, or unequal access. 
An important challenge will be how to find a balance between ease of access to these data streams and the privacy of citizens in our urban environment. New developments in privacy-preserving data analytics are helping to make this possible. This is done by randomising the raw data, while still preserving the important trends in the aggregate data.
Let us close with an invitation to all Melburnians for a hands-on experience of urban connectedness. Until the end of November you can participate in a mobility survey using the sensors of your smartphone, and thereby sharing your day-to-day transport demand with researchers who explore ways to better inform governments on transport planning. Participants may be eligible for a $50 gift card. Click <a href="https://imod-au.info/">here</a> for details.
We think Melburnians are passionate about their transport system, and we want to look for ways to capture the joys and frustrations of travelling around this great city.
 
Stephan Winter is professor of spatial information, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephan-winter-13767" target="_blank">here</a>.
Christopher Leckie is professor of computer science, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/christopher-leckie-1922" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

A city thrives on connectedness but access all hours makes privacy a problem

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Australians have very high expectations of their public transport systems. They consistently prefer investment in public transport over investment in roads. State elections have been lost when politicians don’t meet those expectations.
As a researcher in public transport, I am frustrated by a narrative I see time and again. It comes up in comments in focus groups and pops up at the bottom of news articles. It goes something like this:
"I’ve been to London / New York / Tokyo and their public transport system is better / cheaper / more reliable than ours! Why can’t our public transport be that good?"
Australia’s public transport systems seem shoddy compared to other countries for a number of reasons. These reasons make me question whether those comparisons are valid.
<h2>When on holiday, don’t do as commuters do</h2>
The first reason this comparison is flawed is because when we’re on holiday, we don’t use public transport the same way we do in our mundane commute back home.
When you’re on holiday your concept of time and money is different. A few extra dollars for a tourist pass, a few extra minutes on the platform, it all becomes part of the adventure of travel. A few extra dollars or minutes back home is another inconvenience in your daily grind.
Chances are when you visited London, Tokyo or New York you visited the exciting tourist centres of these cities – places where public transport is at its best.
You probably didn’t visit Woldingham, Tachikawa or Port Washington – outlying suburbs beyond the reach of metro systems. Places where the trains only run every 20 minutes or, heaven forbid, you may have to use a bus. Places a lot more like the suburbs back home.
<h2>Australia’s super cities</h2>
The other reason this comparison is flawed is due to the super-size of Australia’s cities. How that came about is an accident of history as much as anything. Many of the overseas cities Australians idolise did most of their growing before the private car became embedded into the transport system. This resulted in compact urban forms served by narrow, winding streets.
That urban form was designed to suit the needs of pedestrians, horse carts and trams. By the time the car came along it had to be retrofitted into the city.
In contrast, Australian cities – along with many American cities – did most of their growing in parallel with the explosion of motor vehicle ownership. Highways and cars facilitated the post-war suburban explosion, allowing millions to live the dream of quarter-acre blocks far from the city centre.
Because of this legacy, Australian cities are enormously far-reaching. In most capitals you can drive for 100km and still be within the same city limits.  Melbourne’s footprint is six times the size of London with half its population; Brisbane is 20 times the footprint of New York City with one-quarter of its population. 
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89420/area14mp/image-20150723-22849-1ao8g4e.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89420/width668/image-20150723-22849-1ao8g4e.png" alt=""></a>
London (1,572 sq km, 8.3 million people) vs Melbourne (9,990 sq km, 4.3 million). https://mapfrappe.com
<div class="enlarge_hint"> </div>
 
 
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89421/area14mp/image-20150723-22816-afd8si.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89421/width668/image-20150723-22816-afd8si.png" alt=""></a>
New York City (790 sq km, 8.4 million people) vs Brisbane (15,826 sq km, 2.2 million). 
In Australia, public transport has to play catch-up constrained by an urban form designed by and for the car. This isn’t an impossible task, by any means, but it suggests that perhaps we’re comparing ourselves to the wrong cities.
What if we made more realistic comparisons? For example Portland, Oregon, is around the same size and has about the same population of Brisbane. It is held up as one of the “best transit cities” in the United States. Yet Brisbane has more public transport trips per capita – around 70 per year – than Portland, which has 58 per year.
If Australia’s cities were ranked alongside American cities in public transport trips per year, Sydney and Melbourne would both rank third behind New York and San Francisco, Perth would rank ninth (above Chicago) and Brisbane would rank tenth (above Philadelphia).
<h2>A call to (realistic) action</h2>
I am glad that Australians have high expectations of their public transport systems, and I will continue to advocate for improving public transport as an integral part of efficient, sustainable cities. But Sydney will never be Tokyo and Adelaide will never be London – nor should they be.
We already have strong, uniquely Australian legacies to build on. Adelaide and Brisbane were some of the first cities in the world to invest in bus rapid transit. Melbourne has the largest streetcar (tram) network in the world.
Rather than lamenting what we are not, let us focus on making Australian public transport systems the very best they can be.
Alexa Delbosc is lecturer in transport at Monash University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexa-delbosc-147245" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Public Transport

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Public Transport

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News