Serial mass immigration spruiker, Jessica Irvine, has called for Inner-Sydney to be densified to reduce travel times:
Sydney’s economy will get an almost $20 billion boost if government invested in affordable housing in the inner city, slashing commute times and increasing job opportunities for the city’s workers, researchers say…
Under the scenario modelled by the researchers, workers on average would enjoy an estimated travel time saving of $2554 per year…
“It is clear that Sydney cannot keep taking its business-as-usual approach to pushing development out to the fringes of the city where there isn’t the jobs or infrastructure to support it”…
Hate to break it to you Jess, but Infrastructure Australia has already modelled future outcomes for Sydney as mass immigration pushes the city’s population to a projected 7.4 million people by 2046. The three development scenarios modelled were:
- “Expanded Low density”: 70% infill; 30% greenfield.
- “Centralised High Density”: 90% infill; 10% greenfield.
- “Rebalanced Medium Density” 80% infill; 20% infill.
As you can see, all three scenarios require the overwhelming majority of Sydney’s future development to be infill. Moreover, Infrastructure Australia’s modelling showed that under each scenario, all liveability indicators – commute times, traffic congestion, and access to schools, hospitals and green space – deteriorate under the mass immigration policy:
Clearly, the best way to safeguard Sydney’s living standards isn’t to densify the inner-city, but rather slash the immigration intake and stop Sydney from ballooning to nearly 10 million people over the next half century, as projected by the ABS:
Mass immigration is the primary cause of Sydney’s over-development, congestion, rising commute times, and declining liveability. Therefore, slashing immigration to digestible levels is the number one solution to these problems.
