If Beattie really did govern for all Queenslanders, as he claims to do, he would be out there encouraging migrants to settle in the rest of the state where much of the infrastructure is underutilised, not overutilised. He would not only be doing regional Queensland a big favour, he would be buying the one thing that Brisbane residents really need, time.

The tunnels are an excellent example of how the cost of urban problems increase by multiples rather than simple addition. The public was seriously hoodwinked by the Brisbane Institute's scare campaign over urban sprawl. And this has led to a regional plan that will increase concentration and multiply costs. To achieve this end they trashed some very important property rights. And for what? To compell an outcome that the price of petrol is about to do any way.

We live in the kingdom of the blind.

Good article.

I'd like to expand on the comment about building more walking and cycling tracks. We need to start thinking of some of these as more than tracks and begin to build transport corridors which cater for something other than petrolium fueled transport.

Train services where peak hour services generally provide a seat for all commuters. I gather the Gold Coast line is nicknamed "The Bombay Express" in honour of the crowding on it, I generally get a seat on the Cleveland line but commuters getting onto it at later stops may not. You can't take a push bike on the train during peak hours - sensible but maybe there is an alternative which facilitates a mix.

The cycle tracks between my place and Brisbane city are not complete and there are significant sections where riding to work would mean using a main road with no cycle path.

Options which might help
- Ensure that all main traffic corridors include a cycle path which keeps cyclists off the bit of the road used by cars.
- Extra train services at peak hours - this may be an issue of capacity of the lines.
- Work related travel expenses on public transport to be tax deductable (travel to and from the normal place of work).
- The bike locker system used by the railways could be expanded. I have a locker at my local station but I've heard others say that they are very hard to get. Some of these in the city not associated with the railway could be useful - much better security than a bike rack.
- Possibly run bike routes along the rail easement would be a relatively low cost way of providing much of the space for bike paths for commuting.

R0bert

Why not encourage motorcycle and scooter use?

Some consider motorcycling as 'dangerous' however it could be argued that the present abundance of cars and trucks and their lack of awareness or respect for motorcycles causes most bike related accidents. To be fair a lack of training undertaken by riders often contributes as well.

If you look at three particular factors the pattern is already set for motorcycles to become a preferred or simply necessary form of commuter transport -
- Exorbitant fuel costs
- Cost of buying/owning a car vs young people's income.
- Asia as a nearby 'model' (with a similar climate to Qld.)

The next factor is traffic congestion - motorcycles have the advantage here, they create less pollution and could help to relieve congestion if infrastructure is modeled around them.

I would also predict that the electric motorcycle will more likely precede the electric car to our roads due to cost/ease of manufacture, and affordablity.

You may have noticed the recent trend in scooter commuting... looking similar to asia already but let's hope our traffic system doesn't follow the same pattern - towards chaos.

State Gov and transport org's should begin supporting the growth in motorcycle use, not ignoring it.

Some suggestions:
- Create motorcycle lanes and pathways within our roads system.
- Bypasses for trucks and heavy vehicles.. they are not compatible with motorcycles - or cars.
- Increase driver awareness of motorcycles/scooters through current driver training requirements, advertising and joint campaigns with motoring org's and insurance providers.
- Encourage more advanced rider training or make compulsory for learners.

Here's an opportunity for our city to become a preferred model worldwide in embracing the future and providing the best possible infrastructure to support inevitable changes.

Ah, a good article Tristan.

Now, it is true, that some people might see this as an improvement in teh road system and decide to drive, and no take public transport. But you see, people are quite stupid. They would buy a car and use it every day even if petrol was at 100 cents a barrel and traffic was slow.

But I still think Tristan makes a good point. What we need though, is to actually block roads from going into the city. Create the Bus Nation!
(PS: I am aware of how painful Busing can be) It will be good for our air, and our pocket book.

Increased traffic, loss of air quality, crowded suburbs, loss of water quality; these things and more are the result of forcing the population up via immigration. We are not allowed to discuss them openly like a mature society because the minute you question any aspect of this idiotic policy you are branded as xenophobic.

Sit back in that traffic jam and inhale that quality melange of auto pollution, industrial by-product, power station emissions etc. Think how lucky you are.

Does anyone recall the debacle of Los Angeles - the most car-dependent and air polluted city in the world? I was told that early in the century some wise codger in the LA government suggests that the city invest in a public train system similar to the ones developed in Europe. The car manufacturers got wind of it and convinced (bribed) the city bosses to drop the plan. I can't remember where I read it, it doesn't really matter because LA chose the car thing in a time when even the most far-sighted person would be ignored but Brisbane is an entirely different situation. Isn't history supposed to give us insight - "lesson's from the past" - and all that stuff?.

Welcome to Bris-Angeles - please collect your gas mask at the toll booth. No school today air pollution too high. Benzine fumes cause breast cancer - so try to avoid prolonged breathing of the air. Children no sport get overweight or get asthma. (Thank goodness for the environmentalists - at least we don't have to worry about lead poisoning too.)

And remember the dams are empty too - so don't use that either.

sage, I don't see much stopping people discussing immigration around these forums. The problem is most insist on discussing it in terms of what terrible people they think muslims/asians/(add your pet group) are rather than in terms of the environment. Different issue.

R0bert

The Bureau of Transport Economics (1996)has estimated that each additional internal or external migrant to Brisbane will increase congestion costs by $12,000 a year between 1995 and 2015. In contrast, the average annual per capita spending by state and local government in Queensland is only $6,300, and this is matched by a similar figure for revenue (GST, State Taxes and Fees for services).

So what does this mean? It means that each migrant that moves to country Queensland generates sufficient revenue to pay for the services they use. But each migrant that moves to South East Queensland (including those from country Qld)still generates sufficient revenue to pay for the government services they use but they also impose additional costs on themselves and the rest of the community that are twice as high as their share of state revenue.

And as state/local spending is 45% of total government spending, it means that residents of SEQ face additional costs that are almost the same again as the total federal/state/local tax take.

Decentralisation is the only way we can maintain the economic growth that comes with population growth whilst avoiding the costs of congestion. At the moment it is one step forward, three steps backwards.

'Decentralisation is the only way we can maintain the economic growth that comes with population growth whilst avoiding the costs of congestion.'

Eek! I can think of nothing worse than letting suburbia get more and more spread out in an endless nightmarishly depressing sprawl. People living close to each other is good, it's just the cars that are bad.

Big city - public transport. Hey, if everyone's centralised there's a lot less need for cars! It's all this spreading out that causes our over-dependence on them.

And blaming immigrants is just laughable. By the exact same rationale we could tell people to stop having children. And honestly, Australia is NOT overpopulated. The amount of space we have per person, compared to suffering over-opulated countries from which people (rightly) immigrate, is criminal.

You can print this in stone, and don't you ever forget it: NO LAND belongs to anyone. We belong to the land. But, since we've set up society in a way that ignores this basic logic, maybe the least we can do is share the wealth.

Thanks for the interesting comments.

RE: Decentralisation. I think Perseus and Spendocrat are thinking about two different concepts. I think a decentralisation of our population would mean channeling population growth into other population centres e.g. Bundaberg or Toowoomba. I don't think decentralisation would mean allowing Brisbane to sprawl further.

The $1.3 billion from the 4.5km North-South Bypass Tunnel could be used far more effectively in other population centres, and simply by making these places more attractive to live it would reduce the strain on Brisbane's infrastructure.

Consolidation of the population into higher density doesn't necessarily increase public transport and reduce car usage. Consolidation must be focused around public transport, and the quality of public transport must be increased. Making the consolidated areas more walkable and ensuring people can access services in their local area.(Refer Cervero's 'Transit Villages in the 21st Century')

RE Los Angeles. Rancitas - I think LA did actually have a train system which may have then been replaced by diesel buses (due to some lobbying from companies). I think there are a range of factors that led to LA being so car dependent e.g. federal funding for road building. Refer Chapter 3 of 'A very public solution: transport in the dispersed city' by Mees or to 'Cities of Tomorrow' by Hall.

RE: Thieving magpie and Accurate 1 - I agree that buses and motorbikes are certainly part of the solution, but it is important not to get too caught up on talking about certain modes or technologies.

RE: Robert. Excellent point on walking/cycling corridors rather than just paths. The current ped/cycle system certainly is disjointed and this actually makes it more dangerous. You may be interested in Brisbane writer, David Engwicht, his book is 'Towards the eco-ciy'.