Talk:WestConnex

I have removed the recently added section regarding the history of the Cumberland Plan by user:Mqst north. It is far too broad to be put into this article (and also is not written with the standard Wikipedia Manual of Style and Neutral tone). However, it is good detailed information that does need to be kept and either turned into an article about the Cumberland County plan or something equivalent of the Public transport in Sydney article.

This is the text I removed:

The original structure of suburban Sydney resembled a starfish, with residential development restricted to the relatively narrow corridors around railway and tram lines. Employment was highly centralised, with factories and warehouses located in inner-city suburbs such as Marrickville and Pyrmont, close to the convergence of the state's long-distance railway lines, as well as the docks of Sydney Harbour.

By the end of World War II however, it had become clear that motor vehicles would play an increasingly significant role in the city's development. The road-building plan that emerged as part of the 1948 Cumberland County Plan effectively replicated the railways' and tramways' focus on moving travellers from the outer suburbs to and from the central business district (CBD). The Cumberland Plan's radial motorway network was never realised in full, but by identifying the corridors for the new roads in advance, the planners successfully reduced future construction costs, at least outside of the high-density urban core.^[1]

Construction proceeded slowly, with Sydney's first controlled-access highway, the Cahill Expressway, opening 10 years later. The pace had accelerated by the late 1960s, with isolated sections of the proposed Warringah, Newcastle, North Western, Western and Southern freeways open to traffic by 1971.

Soon after, the relevance of the (by now defunct) County Council's plan came under sustained pressure from major social and economic shifts. An increasing number of commuters were now travelling from dwellings in one suburb to workplaces in another, avoiding the CBD altogether, as manufacturers moved to less constrained greenfield sites in the suburbs. At the same time, large-scale suburban malls drew shoppers away from the CBD and local corner shops; knowledge industries took root in spacious suburban campus-style developments; and Sydney Harbour and Central Station progressively lost freight and passengers to Port Botany and Sydney Airport.^[1]

Motorways themselves also came under attack, with the Green Bans movement and others campaigning against completion of the North Western, Warringah and Eastern freeways. After narrowly winning the 1976 election and facing a deteriorating budget situation, the Australian Labor Party under Neville Wran capitalised on this antipathy by withdrawing funding from a range of contentious transport infrastructure projects. Work was allowed to continue outside the inner city, however, with the Newcastle, Southern and Western freeways continuing to grow through the Wran years.^[2]

Responding to the city's evolution, the then Department of Main Roads revised its thinking about the motorway network, with the Government releasing the landmark Roads 2000 report in 1987. The centrepiece of the plan was an 'orbital' motorway to improve cross-suburban journey, while completing the missing east-west links north and south of the harbour. The orbital took 20 years to complete.^[3]

Sincerely, Wittylama 08:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

While not I am a position to prepare such an article there are some other references which may be of interest on this subject^[4][5][6]

Proposed railways in_Sydney#County of Cumberland Plan.2C 1951 also contains reference to it.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've copied the above to Talk:County of Cumberland planning scheme as a suggested merge to see what people think. Ben Aveling 03:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Added: an introductory summary paragraph. Added: explanation of the min/max/distance/inflation components of the toll. Added: list of funding per source. Not added: a breakdown of how the cost has grown over time. Does anyone have a good link to something on this? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Added: benefits and costs - according to business case. Added: mention of Federal Auditor General auditing WestConnex. Ben Aveling 22:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

But not disclosed, your membership of NSW Labor, your membership of the Alexandria Residents' Action Group, and your contributions to the South Sydney Herald, A people's M4 and A people's M5; sourced from here, here, here, here and here. I encourage you to read WP:COI and WP:DCOI and assess whether you should firstly disclose any conflict of interest and secondly whether it is appropriate to continue contributing towards this article. Rangasyd (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I am a member of the ALP (which supports WestConnex) and a member of ARAG (which does not). I have contributed writings on WestConnex and other topics to a range of outlets. All of the above have been in a voluntary, unpaid capacity. I am a resident of Alexandria, and a NSW taxpayer, which means I am not unaffected by WestConnex. Much the same could of course be said of any resident of NSW. As WP:EXTERNALREL says, "How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." I would rather be judged on the quality of my edits than on my geographic location. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@BenAveling: Thank you for disclosing your political allegiances, your membership of ARAG, and the fact that you have contributed writing on WestConnex in a range of media sources. I take your point re common sense. So, looking at the quality of your edits, I look forward to seeing you contribute referenced information about the community's support of WestConnex, including that of NSW Labour (that you mentioned above); and not just negative stories about the motorway that are predominately sourced from the SMH and ABC and from Clover Moore, Elizabeth Farrelly, et. al.. Rangasyd (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I confess, there is a shortage of informed unbiased support for WestConnex. Perhaps you could find some. Speaking of edits, would you agree that this edit was a bit pointy? Will you revert it, or shall I ask for a 2nd opinion? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@BenAveling: Don't you just love it when ... Q.E.D.! Given your comment above about your comrades supporting the WestConnex, I believe that this is a very important fact to include; in fact, its absence from the article is a significant oversight on your part and would lead to some "common sense" from an independent observer to consider whether you have a WP:POTENTIALCOI. I look forward to you editing the article to include that 'fact', duly referenced; or alternately you WP:DCOI. As to my earlier edit, the grammar in that sentence was atrocious and it has been corrected. Rangasyd (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I might not. But do feel free. I suggest you find someone apart from me to cite. You might also like to find a cite for the claim that the Federal Government still supports the project. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the far side of the planet and know nothing about Sydney's road network ... but came across the public art project Canal to Creek while looking at UK artist Gordon Young who is contributing. It appears that the project is part of WestConnex - should it have a mention in this article? There are (will be?) 18 public art works. PamD 10:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The start of the article claims: "WestConnex in Sydney, Australia is the largest and longest road tunnel in the world which is currently in use, with a length of 26 km."

The official FAQ page for the project states that it is 22km of continuous underground section "including 22km underground in what is the longest continuous underground road tunnel in Australia." source: https://westconnexm4m8.com.au/wcx/m4-m8-extensions/faqs

When searching for sources of 26km, it is the combined length of tunnels of the road section. This should clearly not count as the longest road tunnel then, as only continuous length of a tunnel should be considered.

If combined length was the way to measure this then there are plenty of roads in the world with much more than 26km of tunnels on them, there'd be roads in Norway with combined tunnel lengths in the hundreds of km. 2A01:799:11D5:1E00:0:0:0:1DBC (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally think it should be changed to:

"WestConnex in Sydney, Australia is the largest and longest road tunnel system in Australia, with a length of 26 km."

or

"WestConnex in Sydney, Australia is the largest and longest combined road tunnel in Australia, with a length of 26 km." 2A01:799:11D5:1E00:0:0:0:1DBC (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

And for context, the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_tunnels lists tunnels by their continuous length. So this is an established way of considering what is the longest tunnel. 2A01:799:11D5:1E00:0:0:0:1DBC (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Funnily enough this exact question is something I was considering about WestConnex just about 6 weeks ago.

I agree, mostly... I'd say that this is a type of tunnel/s that has never existed before on such a large scale. In that there are several long tunnels that all connect to each other within tunnel, without any section of the connecting tunnels being above ground/exposed to daylight.

This raises the question if the length of a tunnel should be 'the collective length of connected tunnels including slip roads/connectors' or, if it should be 'the amount of tunnel that a person would realistically travel underground on a direct single journey'. But, if it was the second one, as you suggest, then what about a tunnel such as the Eysturoyartunnilin... 'Altogether, the three-branch subsea tunnel is 11.24 kilometres (6.98 mi) long, including the roundabout.' So you're saying that the Eysturoyartunnilin is actually an ENTIRE THIRD shorter than the length which everybody believes it to be...?!

I think that this is a far bigger and more unclear 'paradox' than you think it is... FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be the longest continuous length you'd reasonably travel (going around the two roundabouts in the Breivikatunnelen back and forth forever would make it the worlds longest tunnel at infinity)

When it comes to Eysturoyartunnilin, it is one tunnel that splits into two tunnels. Counting the total length of the main part before the brancing (7460m) and the longest of the two branches (2153m) should be the correct way to count its length. Which would be 9613m.

Or, we stop counting by length and go by total tunnel volume instead. Lqkas (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

completely in agreement with you. in truth though, this might need to go to some wikipedia 'governing body' or something. because a standard way of measuring it needs to be decided on definitively before making significant changes to many articles, especially 'longest tunnels' FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

A tunnel is a continuous passageway that is 100% underground. In other words, any time there's an above-ground section, that's the end of the tunnel; if you then go underground again, it's a different tunnel, even if it's the same road. I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree with this first paragraph.

The length of a tunnel is the shortest trip that the expected traffic can make, to go in at one end and come out at the other end. (For example, in a train tunnel you follow the track; in a road tunnel you follow the driving lane; it doesn't matter if you could actually walk a shorter route through a curved tunnel, unless it's intended as a walking tunnel.) This second paragraph is arguable in several ways.

If a tunnel has any branches while still underground, then measure the single section plus the longest branch, and ignore the other branches. This part is also arguable, at least to some extent. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

If we allow breaks in tunnels, then we also have to agree with the old man who claims to have eaten the longest dinner ever: eight hundred thousand hours long, with occasional breaks. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

In terms of underground networks of tunnels, it seems clear to me that the number of tunnels has to equal the number of usable combinations of one entrance and one exit. If there's one way in and five ways out, that's five tunnels. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

What is the longest single section of this project that is fully underground? No backtracking and no daylight - even if that might leave me in the middle of nowhere. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)