Alan B.,
>Alan Davies Just keeps putting the same failed critique up again and again.

If so, why don't you point out the failure instead of reposting your own failed critique?

So far all you've done is claim the loop's what's needed (without attempting to explain why), express the hope that it will eventually be extended into a full circle (but remained silent when I asked if you were really advocating a long rail tunnel under Port Phillip Bay) and slated Alan Davies over opinions you WRONGLY assume him to have.

>Glad, he wasn't around when the Harbour bridge was being contemplated given with his beancounter record he'd have scotched that one as well and for the same patently ideologically based reasons?

Wanting money to be spent in the most effective way is a matter of practicality not ideology. It does not make one a bean counter, and nor does noticing that the proposed loop would not be particularly effective in getting passengers from where they are to where they want to go.

There are of course arguments for the rail loop, and Alan's multiple pieces on it are a response to those arguments.

If Alan had been around when the Harbour Bridge was being contemplated, I daresay he would have been a supporter. That opinion is based on my reading quite a lot of his Crikey blog, whereas yours seems to be an instant response to his opposition to this loop.