Local developer Harridan is seeking to turn its Woolloongabba apartment project into the first stage of a broader transformation of Burke Street, using a new 16-storey mixed-use building to establish a greener pedestrian connection toward the rapidly evolving Boggo Road transport and knowledge precinct.

The South East Queensland developer has filed plans for 154 apartments on the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/4-burke-street-woolloongabba-qld-4102">southern side of Burke Street</a>, where its proposal has been designed alongside a wider vision by LatStudios for the street.

That vision positions the southern side of Burke Street for buildings of 15 storeys and above, while envisaging lower-rise development of up to five storeys on the northern side to transition into Woolloongabba's existing character housing. It also proposes wider pedestrian verges, deep planting, new street trees and upgrades to the pedestrian approach to Boggo Road Station.

The Harridan development itself has been designed by Brisbane-based Arqus Design and will comprise 154 apartments across 16 storeys. The mix is weighted heavily toward two-bedroom apartments, with 121 proposed alongside 10 one-bedroom and 23 three-bedroom residences. There will typically be around 14 units per floor.

A lower-ground car park and three podium levels will accommodate 156 resident parking spaces, along with visitor and commercial parking. There will also be 154 resident bicycle spaces and 40 visitor bicycle parks.

&nbsp;

Harridan is a family-owned developer and part of the Holmwood Highgate Group, with more than three decades of development activity across South East Queensland. Its portfolio spans residential, commercial and industrial property, with current residential projects including Riverbank on Byron in Bulimba, Esperance Residences in Carina and The Precinct at Kinross Road in Thornlands.

Wooloongabba has been popular for apartment developers, particularly since the announcement of the 2032 Summer Olympics games in Brisbane.

While there have been a lot of development applications, it has failed to materialize into real supply.&nbsp;

Sarazin has been the major player in the area. They are under construction at Murcia Residences, on the fringe of East Brisbane and Woolloongabba. They have just launched <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/the-stanley-residences-woolloongabba-8-trafalgar-street-woolloongabba-qld-4102">The Stanley Residences</a>, in Woolloongabba on Trafalagar Street. They also have Nuage coming soon on the nearby <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/nuage-woolloongabba-14-wellington-road-woolloongabba-qld-4102">Wellington Road</a>.

Joel Robinson

First look: Harridan plans Burke Street transformation beside Boggo Road transport hub

IN BRIEF

<ul>
	<li>
	Just three double-storey Sky Homes sit at the top of The Waterline, each with its own private marina berth and rooftop terrace.
	</li>
	<li>
	Construction on The Waterline is complete, with the first residents expected to move in from mid-October.
	</li>
	<li>
	Sky Homes range from 282 sqm to 367 sqm and are priced from $3.65 million.
	</li>
</ul>

<hr />
Lewis Land has opened the first completed sky home for inspection at Harbour Shores, giving buyers their first opportunity to step inside one of just three double-storey residences crowning The Waterline.

Each sky home comes with its own private marina berth, rooftop terrace and Broadwater views, combining the scale of a larger home with direct access to the boating lifestyle that underpins the wider <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/harbour-shores-biggera-waters-564-oxley-drive-biggera-waters-qld-4216">Harbour Shores</a> masterplan.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=113271 project_image_fid=366708]

Lewis Land Head of Development Michael Long said the inclusion of a berth with every Sky Home had become increasingly valuable as marina access across the Gold Coast tightened.

“Marina berths are becoming increasingly difficult to secure across the Gold Coast, so including one with every Sky Home makes this a genuinely rare offering,” Long said.

“The private 70-berth marina will accommodate boats up to 12 metres in length and is positioned just 2.5 kilometres from the Broadwater, placing the open ocean only 15 minutes away.

“Being able to step out of your home onto your boat is a rare luxury, and it’s something residents here can look forward to when it opens later this year.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=113271 project_image_fid=366709]

The display opening comes as construction completes on The Waterline, with the first residents expected to move in from mid-October.

The three Sky Homes range from 282 sqm to 367 sqm and each feature three bedrooms, three bathrooms, multiple living zones, expansive kitchens with butler's pantries and large balconies taking in the Broadwater outlook.

Each residence also has three secure basement car spaces and additional storage.

“This is the first opportunity the Gold Coast has had to step into Harbour Shores and see, touch and feel what we’re bringing to life here,” Long said.

“There are only three Sky Homes within The Waterline, ranging in size from 282sqm to 367sqm, with each residence featuring three large bedrooms, three bathrooms, multiple living zones, expansive custom-built kitchens with butler’s pantry, and large balconies capturing Broadwater views.”

<img alt="Harbour Shores" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="bab65e10-4fab-45e1-92d8-fc56e2ab98ff" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-25%20at%202.00.16%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=XT8q76LsPkw3cYTsvN3JfFDaPLud90PN" />

Residents of The Waterline will have access to a private pool, along with Harbour Shores' wider collection of amenity including a lagoon pool, social clubhouse, tennis court, gym, yoga facilities and sauna.

Lewis Land partnered with Studio Collective to furnish the completed display, with the interiors designed to demonstrate how the residences could function as permanent homes rather than simply as show apartments.

Studio Collective Director Melissa Park said the surrounding waterways informed the interiors, but in a more restrained way than a traditional coastal scheme.

“We drew inspiration from the canals and coastal surrounds, but our approach was to interpret that subtly through layered materials and a grounded palette of earthy tones, rather than literal coastal references,” Park said.

“We introduced hero moments of green and teal to reference the surrounding waterways, while mirrored elements help reflect natural light.

“The result is a residence that feels elevated yet comfortable, somewhere buyers can genuinely imagine themselves living, entertaining and unwinding.”

Sky Homes are priced from $3.65 million.

Lewis Land is also offering private marina berths with The Residences, its limited collection of three and four-bedroom villas positioned directly along the Harbour Shores waterfront boardwalk.

Three-bedroom villas are priced from $2.99 million, while four-bedroom residences start from $3.19 million.

Harbour Shores is being marketed by Colliers International.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=113271]

Lewis Land opens sky home display as The Waterline completes at Harbour Shores

St Vincent de Paul Society Housing Australia has filed plans for a major mixed-use housing precinct on the southern edge of the North Sydney CBD, adding another significant proposal to a pocket around North Sydn​ey Station that is quickly becoming one of the LGA's busiest development zones.

The State Significant Development Application covers a 5,990 sqm site at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/1-19-mackenzie-street-lavender-bay-nsw-2060">1-19 MacKenzie Street and 211 Blues Point Road in Lavender Bay</a>, immediately south of Nor​th Sydney Station and between the commercial core and the lower-rise Lavender Bay Heritage Conservation Area.

Designed by Wardle, the proposal would deliver a new residential tower comprising 88 build-to-sell apartments and 19 affordable apartments, alongside a separate co-living building with 57 rooms and a building manager's studio.

It would also see the significant restoration and upgrade of St Francis Xavier Catholic Church, the adaptive reuse of the former school building, new parish facilities, retail, a new public square and around 1,000 sqm of publicly accessible open space.

<img alt="Vinnies North Sydney" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="d5dd7f87-a617-463e-b577-17541e01f0e9" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-26%20at%209.10.13%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=4R8TsFN3P_LrrXO2HswTOIrx2blil8lh" />

The project is seeking a concurrent rezoning of the site to R4 High Density Residential and an increase in the maximum building height to allow a tower reaching RL120, or up to 20 storeys. The proposal was progressed through the NSW Government's Housing Delivery Authority pathway.

The build-to-sell component will be weighted toward larger apartments, with just six one-bedroom apartments compared with 31 two-beds, 43 three-beds and eight four-bedroom residences.

The 19 affordable apartments will comprise two studios, 15 one-bedroom apartments and two two-bedroom apartments, taking the total apartment component to 107 residences before the 58 co-living rooms are included.

<img alt="Vnnies" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="7d568ca5-cb90-4e18-96c6-d9795dba0c56" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-26%20at%209.10.05%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=GY2R5M9VtQh0EKy1vajaea19PSLOPuRD" />

Wardle's design for the Vinnies site has sought to negotiate that emerging high-rise context while retaining the lower-scale character of MacKenzie Street and the adjoining heritage conservation area.

The main building adopts a three-storey podium and tower arrangement, with the podium aligned to the ridgeline and front setback of St Francis Xavier Church.&nbsp;Wardle has designed the podium with colonnades, seating, recessed entries and active ground-floor frontages, with sandstone-toned precast concrete and face brick referencing the materiality of the existing church.

The tower then steps back eight metres to the south and six metres to the north before rising in a sculpted form comprising four interlocking quadrants. Wardle has also introduced rounded forms and chamfered corners to reduce the tower's perceived bulk and improve view sharing with neighbouring development sites.

Resident facilities and outdoor areas are planned at the separation between the podium and tower at Level 3, oriented toward Sydney Harbour and the CBD skyline.

The tower itself will feature a glass reinforced concrete facade, with recessed balconies and deep reveals used both to provide shading and privacy and frame views toward the harbour and city. The lower levels take a different architectural approach, using brick and sandstone-toned finishes intended to establish a stronger relationship with St Francis Xavier Church. The Church itself will be conserved and upgraded for its continued use, while the former school building will be adaptively reused as part of the co-living component.

<img alt="Lavendar Bay" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2d4418ad-90aa-4d49-af93-c80b140aea80" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-26%20at%209.09.47%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=Kv4gzbsACaGvZSRuaqcfGC54jEJRXIDJ" />

&nbsp;

The proposal adds to an increasingly concentrated pipeline of residential development around Blue Street, MacKenzie Street and Lavender Bay.

Just west of the site, Central Element lodged plans earlier this year for one of the most significant residential developments proposed in Lavender Bay in recent years.

Central Element's SJB-designed scheme at 64-66 Lavender Street and 3-7 Middlemiss Street would deliver 163 apartments across two towers rising 23 and 32 storeys, replacing five existing apartment buildings containing 32 homes. The project also forms part of the Housing Delivery Authority pathway.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-central-element-reveals-lavender-bay-apartment-plans?utm_source=chatgpt.com" rel="noopener" target="_blank">First look: Central Element reveals Lavender Bay apartment plans</a>

Immediately around North Sy​dney Station, another two significant proposals have emerged at 5 and 15 Blue Street.

Zurich Australian Insurance Properties is seeking to adaptively reuse its longstanding commercial building at 5 Blue Street, directly above North Sydney Station, rather than demolishing the structure.

Its SSDA proposes converting the building into a 14-storey mixed-use development with 62 apartments and 86 co-living rooms, together with ground-floor retail and a major refurbishment of Blue Street Plaza. The application is currently at the Response to Submissions stage.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-zurich-targets-north-sydney-office-conversion-with-148-unit-proposal-above-metro-station">First look: Zurich targets North Sydney office conversion with 148-unit proposal above Metro station</a>

&nbsp;

First look: Vinnies files for 20-storey Lavender Bay apartment tower as North Sydney housing pocket heats up

When the opportunity arose for South Australian developer Palumbo to return to Kent Town, where it had previously delivered East Park Apartments and the East 
Rundle Apartments, it wasn't one the longstanding developer-builder was going to pass up.

The decision was quickly vindicated, with more than 30 apartments sold within the first month of launching <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/royal-apartments-kent-town-2-8-north-terrace-kent-town-sa-5067">Royal Apartments</a> to the market.

The 206-apartment development, which will bring significant new supply to Adelaide's tightly held eastern city fringe, also gives <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/palumbo">Palumbo</a> the opportunity to bring new life to one of Kent Town's most recognisable watering holes.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=6109 project_image_fid=376073]

Royal Apartments incorporates the historic Royal Hotel, a venue Palumbo Managing Director Daniel Palumbo said has a longstanding connection with the local community.

"Everyone in the area has history with the Royal Hotel," Palumbo told Apartments.com.au.

"It was quite an active pub and social gathering place for locals. We want to bring it back to its former glory."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=6109 project_image_fid=376072]

The wider development will comprise two residential towers alongside the restored hotel, sitting on North Terrace opposite the Adelaide Park Lands.

For Palumbo, the project also marks a return to familiar territory.

The developer completed East Park Apartments next door more than a decade ago and jumped at the opportunity to develop in Kent Town again when the Royal Hotel site became available.

"The opportunity emerged, and we moved to secure the site," Palumbo said.

"We were approached by the previous landowner, who said they had extensive commitments in Sydney and weren't in a position to deliver the project.

"We took over the site and within six months recut the design scheme to be more in keeping with the type of development we want to bring to Adelaide.

"Now we're on the market and those changes have really resonated with local buyers."

That has translated into a strong start to sales, with 33 apartments transacting in the project's first 35 days.

Palumbo said the early purchaser profile had been consistent with the group's traditional focus on owner-occupiers rather than investor-led apartment stock.

"Local owner-occupiers have always been our market," he said.

"There are always some investors, but we've never developed what would be called traditional development stock. Owner-occupiers are very much our market."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=6109 project_image_fid=376068]

The buyer mix has been diverse so far, with downsizers and younger professionals both accounting for a significant portion of early sales.

South Australia's current stamp duty settings, which allow&nbsp;eligible homeowners in South Australia aged 60 savings of up to $103,830 on stamp duty when they downsize to a new property valued at up to $2 million,&nbsp;have helped encourage downsizer activity, while younger buyers in their late 20s and early 30s have been attracted to the opportunity to live immediately outside the CBD while still being able to walk into the city.



Location has been a major part of the proposition for both buyer cohorts.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=6109 project_image_fid=376075]

Royal Apartments sits on North Terrace directly opposite the Adelaide Park Lands, with residents able to walk through the parklands toward the East End, Rundle Street and Rundle Mall.

Apartments have been positioned to capture views across the parklands, Adelaide skyline, Botanic Gardens and Adelaide Hills.

Palumbo believes the scarcity of developable land along this section of the Park Lands makes the site particularly difficult to replicate.

"There's very few allotments on that side that can be developed," he said.

"If this location was in New York and you were sitting on Central Park, you'd be talking about a $60 million apartments."

Royal Apartments will offer a broad mix of residences, ranging from one-bedroom apartments through to four-bedroom sub-penthouses and penthouses.

Current listings include one-bedroom apartments from $680,000, while larger three and four-bedroom residences are priced around $2.5 million.

Residents will have access to a swimming pool, gym, barbecue and recreation areas, residents' lounge and dining space, and a communal deck.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=6109 project_image_fid=376067]

The apartments will feature generous balconies, while secure parking, bicycle storage and storage cages will also be provided.

A porte-cochère-style arrival and drop-off area has also resonated with buyers, particularly those attracted to being able to walk into the CBD during the day while retaining secure vehicle access at home.

Palumbo is acting as developer, architect and builder on Royal Apartments, continuing the vertically integrated model it has used across its South Australian portfolio.

The group was also behind the $150 million Sofitel Adelaide, the 251-room five-star hotel and residential tower which opened in 2021.

Palumbo said Royal's launch had come at an interesting time for the broader Adelaide apartment market.

Buyer confidence had initially been impacted by uncertainty surrounding the Federal Budget and broader economic conditions, but Palumbo believes sentiment is beginning to improve against a backdrop of significant investment flowing into South Australia.

He pointed to increased activity across defence and resources, including Olympic Dam, as potential long-term drivers of the state's economy and housing market.

"Money is starting to flow into Adeliade, significant amounts as Adelaide bucks the trend of the rest of the country.," Palumbo said.

"There's a lot of activity in the economy over the next decade. I think more investment will come into this market."

Early works on Royal Apartments are expected to commence this year, with major construction activity and cranes anticipated on site from early next year.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=6109]

Palumbo's return to Kent Town strikes early chord with buyers

Go-to builder-developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/graya">GRAYA</a> is continuing to bulk out its already impressive and diverse apartment portfolio across South East Queensland. Their latest milestone is securing development approval for Silk, its boutique riverfront apartment development in St Lucia.

The approval clears&nbsp;the way for the team to begin construction planning for the 22-residence project.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/silk-st-lucia-16-18-sandford-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">Silk</a> will rise 15 levels from an 810 sqm site at 16-18 Sandford Street, occupying a prominent bend of the Brisbane River with a prized northern aspect across Orleigh Park toward the Brisbane CBD.

The approved scheme will comprise 16 split-floor and six full-floor residences, continuing GRAYA's move into larger-format apartment developments targeting Brisbane's prestige owner-occupier market.

The project has been designed around the site's broad river frontage and dual-direction views, with GRAYA prioritising larger residences, privacy and outlook over apartment yield.

<img alt="Silk St Lucia" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="aa5c2349-f96c-4914-a812-1f2cd6827af8" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-26%20at%208.25.44%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=WY0vEU_7vYjeRJKQHiCwFdMxu8PvFh52" />

GRAYA Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer Rob Gray said the project had been shaped around local homeowners wanting to remain in St Lucia without maintaining a traditional family home.

"St Lucia is one of those suburbs people do not want to leave," Gray said.

"They know the river, the trees, UQ, the golf course, Toowong and Indooroopilly, and that familiarity is hard to replace.

"True riverfront opportunities here are exceptionally scarce. What we have designed at Silk is a way to stay in the suburb people love, with the scale and privacy of a private home and far less to maintain.

"This is not typical apartment product. It is a proper home on the river, and that is exactly what this market has been missing."

The approval comes as new apartment development continues to increase across the St Lucia and neighbouring Toowong corridor, although direct riverfront sites remain considerably more tightly held.

GRAYA Co-founder and Managing Director Andrew Gray said securing the approval had removed a significant element of development risk from Silk.

"Genuine riverfront sites of this quality in St Lucia are not something that comes up regularly," Gray said.

"The approval removes a substantial layer of execution risk, and the location underwrites demand in a way very few inner-city sites can.

"The fundamentals here are as strong as anything we have assessed in Brisbane."

<img alt="Silk St Lucia" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="d0f3d734-65e1-48e8-8ed3-2e0715ffcdd9" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-26%20at%208.25.56%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=sOLSs_jdHkXLWbBKzRyayf5BfTb2vPsD" />

Silk will see GRAYA return to a stretch of the Brisbane River where it already has recent construction experience. The vertically integrated group recently completed ARC in neighbouring Toowong as builder for developer Spyre, delivering the riverfront project on a constrained site.

GRAYA will take a different role at Silk, controlling the project from design and development through construction and aftercare under its vertically integrated model.

The development will include a gym and resident leisure areas at ground level, integrated with the river's edge.

Silk joins a growing pipeline for GRAYA across Brisbane and the Gold Coast, which includes Enclave, The Gallery, Coral and Ripple.

The developer-builder has also recently lodged plans for its largest project to date, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/the-silo-19-chester-street-newstead-qld-4006">The Silo</a>, a proposed <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/qld/graya-buys-frasers-newstead-site-plans-the-silo-between-james-street-and-gasworks-precincts">$700 million mixed-use development</a> in Brisbane's James Street precinct.

Silk is expected to predominantly target local owner-occupiers and prestige buyers seeking a permanent riverfront home in Brisbane's inner west.

Registrations of interest are now open, with further details on the project and construction program to be released as it progresses.

<hr />
<h2>SILK PROJECT FACTS</h2>

Developer-builder: GRAYA

Project: Silk

Location: 16-18 Sandford Street, St Lucia

Apartments: 22

Built form: 15 levels

Site: 810 sqm riverfront holding

Mix: 16 split-floor and six full-floor residences

Status: Development approved

Next step: Construction planning underway

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=152168]

GRAYA greenlit for riverfront St Lucia apartment development, Silk

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