TfNSW & UrbanGrowth: change Bays Precinct vision from "light" to "heavy" rail

This is the concept map released by Urban Growth for the Bays Precinct:

For the Rozelle Railyards, I can see they have listed "Mixed used village ... Green links ... Connectivity to adjoining precincts ... WestConnex/light rail".

This all sounds like quite a utopia for the 0.0001% of Sydney who live in an apartment in the "mixed use village".  But what's benefit is there for the 99.9999% of wider Sydney residents who won't be living in one of UrbanGrowth's mixed use villages?

If UrbanGrowth changed a single word in their document in this list, from "light" rail to "heavy" rail, then yes, I think UrbanGrowth would have created a master-stroke vision.  Unfortunately, though it is only a single word difference, it can mean a huge difference in outcomes for wider Sydney.

Ok, maybe wider Sydney residents may get the northern extension of WestConnex, and I can see how it fills in a gap in Sydney's road network ... but I don't think it's a worthwhile trade-off to lose all the rail infrastructure potential of the Rozelle Railyards, to only just get a slightly longer motorway.  Likewise, the light rail is all very good, but doesn't that already exist?  How much **incremental** benefit is there going to be, beyond what we already have?  And again, is whatever incremental benefit going to be more worthwhile than the loss of the Rozelle Railyards as an infrastructure corridor?

Like Larry Page of Google states, think 10x not 10%... Only a heavy rail line from Ashfield to Barangaroo (via the Rozelle Railyards), as I proposed in my earlier posts, would give the ability to double capacity to carry commuters from Western Sydney into the CBD.  Light rail would only be a 5% or 10% solution, not a 2x solution like this heavy rail proposal:

I can anticipate Urban Growth NSW would say heavy rail planning is a TfNSW responsibility... fair enough.  But how come UrbanGrowth NSW seems to not be adverse to sprinkling the words "light rail" all over their marketing community consultation documents (the North Parramatta renewal pictures had a very nice drawing of light rail running through it ... this was before TfNSW officially sanctioned a Parramatta based light rail).  Maybe UrbanGrowth NSW needs to be more like HK MTR Corporation, which has both transport and development expertise within the one organisation?

Now this brings me to TfNSW.  I can accept their second harbour crossing plans as a 1.5x solution... If Mike Baird succeeds, within 2-3 years this project will be underway.  Which then leaves the question: what happens next?  Can TfNSW hang up their boots and proclaim mission accomplished?  Wasn't the Transport Masterplan and Sydney Rail Futures meant to be a long term 20+ year plan?  In some ways, this is a positive reflection that in 2-3 years they may have more or less achieved much of what they set out to do.  But it also highlights that TfNSW needs to have a broader, bigger and longer term plan ... hopefully the Infrastructure NSW 2014 review will see it the same way and take on a more ambitious plan.