Rather than consider transport by itself wouldn't it also be sensible to consider locating housing keyed to the workers near the area of where they work. Could we make it a goal to eliminate the need for transport in many cases. eg in the financial sector we could have luxury apartments for the big cheeses and more modest accommodations for the others in the same buildings in which the offices are located. Commuting then could be a matter of taking the lift. In the suburban areas we could have housing units required to accommodate workers in an area. Zoning could accomplish this. In fact zoning could eliminate most big shopping centres by requiring stores and other service facilities to be located within walking distances of homes. Such zoning would relive the anomie of the shopping centre as people would encounter each other more frequently in neighbourhood stores. Transit planning should be accompanied by zoning changes which would cut down the necessity for commuting and encourage the development of neighbourhoods where people interact.

By limiting the need for both automotive and public transport we could cut down on pollution and create community.

The picture of the author of the article resembles Kevin Rudd.

I believe the roll-out of the NBN will change much of this, as would the roll-out of rapid rail.
One fails to understand the so called logic of building major roadwork/highways, when it would be vastly less costly to provide much more cost effective rail links.
Rapid rail could be provided for little or no public cost; if some of the resumed land were rezoned as urban; then on-sold to those requiring less costly housing.
Meaning, we could kill two birds with just the one stone, decent urban transport links and affordable housing once again.
The advent of the NG powered ceramic fuel cell, means we could run electric trains with inboard CNG tanks and ceramic cells; or, minus the usual wires!
Which are the most costly aspect of electric rail, monorail or trams etc.
Parenthetically, the ceramic fuel cell has a energy coefficient of 72%, which as an inboard solution, would make it far and away the least costly to run.
The exhaust is mostly water vapour!
Monorail is an interesting option for any number of reasons.
One could be a one way closed circuit loop, that sees gondolas circulating on demand, around and around said loop.
Perhaps just starting off, when a weight sensor says that particular gondola, has an income earning a payload.
Furthermore, destinations could be hit like lift buttons, meaning, only populated stops, or those identified as destinations by passengers, would be actual stops, meaning, more cost effective efficiency!
Moreover, monorail can be rolled out above existing roads, without the need to resume land, the other cost limiting factor of providing affordable public transport.
Rhrosty.

Come on folks, Ross had just shown that public transport doesn't & can't work, then Rhrosty wants to build more railways. Just from
where to where Rhrosty? Oh & that's a great idea, resume our homes, then sell the remains off to the poor. Good one mate. Only a public servant, academic, or town planner could come up with that idea.

I've got a better idea, with a trace of David f.

Get the workers out of the CBD, at least most of them. Stick most of them in offices scattered through out the suburbs, with nice big car parks, where public servants, driving not much further than they do to get to the railway station can park & work.

For equity for all the state, some should be in every country town as well. With the internet we don't need public servants in any particular place. Hell it might almost justify the NBN. Come on Julia, we know you're desperate for some credibility, get with the idea.

With the Bureaucrats gone, & a lot of the retail following them, we can convert much office space into apartments, for those poor souls who want to live & work in ivory towers, & closer all that expensive public transport down. Hell it is so 19Th century anyway.

Life could be a ball, but sorry David. I will not live in an apartment, just because it is close to work. I want to live where I play, & that sure ain't no CBD.

Dear Hasbeen,

I don't want you to live in an apartment. I wouldn't want to live in one myself. I was just suggesting that alternatives be provided for those who would be willing to live near work. I would not compel anyone to live anywhere but would offer them the alternative.

Ross Elliott in "The demography of employment: the commute" asks us to look at the realities of where the jobs are. Increasingly the jobs will be in cyberspace, not in a physical workplace. This will change the transportation pattern and the shape of cities. A reasonable first guess would be that office workers, upper secondary students and university students will need to be at the office, or campus, one day a week. They may well need to meet with colleagues on other days, but this need not be in the office.

What first brought home this change to me was some years ago when working for a government agency, I went to an overseas conference for a few days. I forwarded by office phone to the mobile and took a laptop with me. When I got back I realized I had forgotten to tell anyone in the office I was leaving the countrify. As it was, no one noticed I was absent.

More recently I went to Sri Lanka for a conference while teaching a university course in Canberra. The only way my students noticed the difference was that I left a note for them. The teaching carried on as usual on-line: http://blog.tomw.net.au/search/label/Sri%20Lanka