Ross,

I'm an atypical user of rail transport as an age pensioner who lives in a suburb on the fringe of the city. My main reason for going to the CBD is to attend medical specialist appointments.

Since I've used the convenient rail network, I will not use motor vehicle drives to the CBD. That would be a no-brainer (for me).

I'm encouraged to know there is a reliable Translink train service I can use.

The bigger problem for me is the facilities at these suburban railway stations. Parking is ridiculously inadequate and many steps/arches over the railway line are unable to be used by me because of my severe heart condition.Some of these arches are being upgraded but many are poor timber structures.

The only meaningful and long term cure to congestion, and many other problems, is a much lower and sustainable population.

ateday,

<<The only meaningful and long term cure to congestion, and many other problems, is a much lower and sustainable population.>>

In a democracy, we cannot stop people reproducing like China did. We could try to deal with population growth through reduction of immigration but that would not be a compassionate solution for those fleeing crime, violence and other persecution.

This may be seen as a simplistic solution, but I consider many government departments should be decentralised to regional cities. This would force people out of the cities to get jobs. The objections I see to this view are:

++ Some public servants would go to Bundaberg, Orange, Parkes, Echuca, Renmark, Albany and Alice Springs kicking and screaming - discrimination.

++ Closing down certain buildings in the big cities to take the jobs to regional areas would be seen as a waste of space.

As far as I am aware , all public transport services in the world's cities are subsidized, even the overcrowded Tube in London. So governments must accept the economic reality in the hope that PT's subsidy costs are outweighed by the overall economic benefit to the state.

I live on the outskirts of sydney, love the freedom of cars, but when I can I use Trains, as the congestion close to the CBD (and the Stalinist road closure and parking regimes) make driving uneconomical and unhealthy for blood pressure/stress levels.

Value for money is good (pensioners card holders get flat rate cheap fares), so those who complain about fare rises, should cut back on daily frills like $5 coffees and daily treats.

Having said that, whoever is responsible fo the light rail jokes in Sydney and Canberra need their heads tested, and fired for poor financial judgement.

It's impossible to lower population numbers when people are already here, and they are not going on leave.

However, all immigration should cease, and more effort should be put into catching up with infrastructure necessary for the current over-population. There were too many people in this two-thirds barren county when the population passed 13.5 million.

I believe public transport is inequitable basically immoral. As the article says, it is mostly of use by highly paid city workers, who could easily afford full cost recovery fares.

For me the nearest public transport is a railway station 23 kilometers away. Equity would require a system that offered me transport to that station, at least from a near by point. If people like me can't access public transport, why should we be subsidising it.

I believe the only equitable system would be full cost recovery from fares for any public transport system. This would still be a cheap option for city workers. The total cost wound be less than half a day parking cost in the city, & the potential cost saving of one less car they would have to own.

Overpopulation is a global problem and basically non solvable.
Humanely anyway.
Nature will sort us out sooner or later.

You/they/them overcrowd already overcrowded cities reduce the tax that use to pay for the infrastructure that proceeded development rather than follow, as now. Grease greasy palms to bypass development protocols?

Developers want to have their cake and eat it too. Want to cram more and more people into denser and denser domiciles, then moan about being asked to contribute to the necessary infrastructure to move these people around to where they need to be, for work, study or play!

What we need is very rapid rail and we need it twenty years ago!
Alan B.

Some public servants would go to Bundaberg, Orange, Parkes, Echuca, Renmark, Albany and Alice Springs kicking and screaming - discrimination.
OzSpen,
The way too generous benefits & allowances greatly encourage people to go to other places they don't even have an ounce of interest in !
The Public Service tops the list !

Hear, hear and well said Ozpen. Agree with the proposal/suggestion only I would make mandatory for this or that particular position.

One-third of the workforce are public servants paid with our money to serve us!

If they don't like being asked to relocate, then the position should be offered to more suitable and less choosey applicants. They can still video-link if they need senior advice!

When some of these folk are asked to operate more independently of the usual water cooler crowd they fail dismally and are shown up as incompetent?

Can't blame shift when you are the only grunt on deck!
Alan B.

I agree completely Ozpen. All levels of the public service employment, state & commonwealth, should be spread equally throughout the state & country.

With internet communications there is no need for all departments to be any where near the parliament, & many should be moved to regional cities & towns.

I had to laugh recently when I found the main center for the state government tropical animal husbandry is in Noosa, a hell of a long way from the tropics.

It is a simple mathematical problem.
This is a country that has droughts, perhaps two in 20 years.
We know the capacity of the rainfall. Forget considering dams, we just
build as many as we need. Current drought is now 8 years.
Desal is an expensive emergency source.
Knowing how much water falls out of the sky and where, it can be
calculated what the maximum population should be.
If the current population is greater the excess MUST leave.
Last in, first out.
If not then that sets the maximum. When reached no more come in.
If you were in a lifeboat that would be the rule.
Can anything be simpler ?

Can anything be simpler ?
Bazz,
Not to those highly educated, Degree holding expert consultants that regularly advise the Govt & the Govt Ministers making the final decisions !

I don't know where you are Bazz, but here in far southern Queensland we had the biggest flood in living memory, just a couple of years back. A strange type of drought.

Hasbeen,

<<I don't know where you are Bazz, but here in far southern Queensland we had the biggest flood in living memory, just a couple of years back. A strange type of drought.>>

I also live in SE Qld. In 2019 while severe drought continued in much of western Qld, there was a massive flood during a monsoon rain in February 2019. See: http://www.google.com/search?q=flood+Townsville+2019&safe=active&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNTiSMJDwgkrm02Qm5tNU44LVYyDIQ:1578691439849&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=qTZOMplba_oUpM%253A%252CfebEQxBpKvaCOM%252C%252Fg%252F11h3g3_fdj&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRQptJJjcarXs83vyHQQcT8JDGpyQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZu-3z-_nmAhWcwzgGHUs0DrMQ_B16BAgLEA4&biw=1280&bih=555#imgrc=qTZOMplba_oUpM:

This same monsoon extended to NW Qld with the death of half a million cattle: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-08/graziers-confronted-with-devastation-as-floods-kill-cattle/10793502.

There was another severe drenching in 2013 in parts of Qld: http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2013/02/11/3687492.htm

So, in the midst of severe drought we also had extremes of flooding.

Hi Ateday,

If you really want information about world population, try this:

http://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth#

World birth-rates have been declining and should reach ZPG in about a generation. Population will still rise, mainly because with improving health conditions, people will be living longer. But this process has limits, so world population may start to decline after 2100.

Cheers,

Joe

Bazz, when it comes to desal, you clearly don't know your ass from your elbow!

Keep parroting that desal is too expensive and only so thanks to ignoramuses like yourself Some of who are a science-free zone and worse, decision-makers.

Some years ago now the Dutch inventors of deionisation dialysis desalination used seawater desalinated with the above on broad-scale agriculture! And with privatized power that includes some hydro, coal and nuclear, that ridiculously cost the Texans one-third of what we are slugged, with clearly abundant government compliance.

The very well publicised field trial demonstrated this new space age desalination was demonstrably cost-effective on broad-scale irrigation! The only reason it costs us an arm and a leg is the current cost of COAL-FIRED ENERGY! And a stubborn 20-50 year-long refusal to look at the nuclear alternative, i.e. MSR thorium/nuclear waste burning MSR and with it, energy (vastly) cheaper than coal.

We should do this now as a government facilitated, government-funded, cooperative capitalism public service for the community and in direct competition to the price gouging power barons now screwing the nation!

As for our overseas energy customers, we can service them with electricity generated here and transmitted via graphene cored cables under the sea. As we do so become and energy distributing superpower!

And usher in a new era of unprecedented prosperity for Australia as opposed to the foreign parasites now benefiting from our endeavour and enterprise, or the blood sweat and tears of our forebears!
Alan B.

The public transport subsidy is largely paid for by motorists as compensation for the passengers not cluttering THEIR roads.

Public transport need not be free but does need to be relevant. More white-collar jobs should be allowed to move to walkable suburban centres with minimal onsite parking, thus making better use of existing infrastructure. This is largely a matter of land use planning but the planners have not twigged to the benefits. Both ends of the commute must be supported by public transport for it to be used.

To be adopted, the jobs need to move to the suburbs and not necessarily to the country.

Hasbeen, I am in Sydney and we have a defined catchment area.
That North Queensland had a major flood did not fix the drought in
NSW & part of Qld. We can't run sprinklers over the whole western plains.
So we have to plan for the rain we get.
It seems to be simple to me.
You match the number of people to the amount of water available.
Adjusting for drought years.
Any problem with that, I don't see one. Even rude people with Thorium
Reactors can't change that much, because no one has one going yet.
Don't know why, but the Indians seem to have given up.

Bazz:
Again your ignorance is demonstrated. The Indians gave up on thorium because they tried to use it as solid fuel in conventional highly pressurised reactors. We Don't know that they've given up on thorium per se, just their approach to use in solid fuel reactors.

When and because the only successful and field trialled method shown to work, was a thorium powered Oak Ridge reactor.

A number of nuclear enthusiasts have found all sorts of problems with thorium and complain because they found it didn't suit their preference for highly pressurised solid fuel reactors. All the problems with nuclear power in the years since nuclear power was first commissioned has been due to the pressure they were required to operate under! And an enormous 150 atmospheres minimum.

Whereas, MSR thorium is an unpressurised system that cannot meltdown given the material used to assist the reaction is already molten and deliberately so. and a completely different and vastly cheaper method than current very costly nuclear power,r be it their build costs, or fuel consumption or cost!

You need to stop with the deliberate parroted misinformation spread, least folk suspect you are a fool.
Alan B.

Ross,
This is an excellent article that sets out a lot of the observations I have been making for many years.
The cold reality of our culture is that it has come about, and is completely facilitated by, the automobile. Many of the advocates of public transport are inner city workers who assume that they are typical workers, which of course is a nonsense.
Myself - I am one of said inner city workers, but I choose to bicycle to work - unless it's raining or some other reason that cycling is not convenient, when I resort to my excellent, highly subsidised, public transport system.
Many more people would have a feasible cycle commute to work - probably more than currently have feasible public transport - but laziness is a major factor in why they don't do it. However, I fully realise that cycling is not a feasible option for most people.