Can't be bothered really thinking through this article, but the author's generous use of slightly dodgy sounding statistics has a real stink about it. I suspect this is a prime example of selected statistics meaning whatever you want them to mean. Reading the article you would get the impression that less people now work in the CBD than previously - which is completely wrong, the percentage is lower because more people work in other places. Etc etc. As many posters above point out, increasingly expensive oil will change things.

"A rule of thumb is that rail-based systems require 40,000 people per square kilometre to be viable."

Using Mr Moran's benchmark, it can be deduced that the rail systems known as the Subway, uthe Underground and the Metro (of NY, London and Paris respectively) are unviable (with population densities well below 40 000/km^2) and those metropolises would be better served by cars! Hilarious!

What a mantra the word 'choice' has become for those who dominate democracy commercially.

Developers have taken over government in this country. We now have population growth because these fellows believe that they have a divine right to endless customers on toast. They also believe they have a divine right to speculate on land out in the backblocks, virtually tax-free. Roads and railways mark the places where land may be purchased at greatest likely future profit, so the developers have made sure they are in on this. They prefer roads because roads cost less than railways. The 'Road' people in each state dominate the planning departments, just like the housing and land-merchants. They just want to go on building roads forever. As petroleum increases in price, these fellows will be on our backs (as they are in the US) yapping about how we should use our ancient thin soils to grow ethanol. And they'll be trucking that ethanol by road, because it corrodes pipes.

Mr Whatsit from the IPA reflects interest groups that depend on land speculation with its accompanying roads, housing and other infrastructure, so he isn't going to be pro-public transport. He also reflects a pathology in our community whereby people are kept deprived of land so that there are plenty of them desperate to work in factories or fields. If at all possible these semi-slaves (albeit kept well-fed to avoid revolt) will also be forced to pay for cars through the nose and feed them petrol for as long as possible, because there is more profit to be made out of cars than there is to be made out of public transport.

It is not about choice. It is about imposition and obstinate greed.

Kanga

Johnj (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4445#41215) is right. This article is abysmal, even by the standards of the usual dreck churned out by right wing think tanks such as the IPA and CIS.

Johnj, as one who had the misfortune of having to live in Sydney in 2004, I saw the Carr 'Labor' government cynically run down its rail and bus system whilst pouring inordinate amounts of public money and private money into the construction of roads and tollways.

On the flimsiest of excuses, one example being the shortage of drivers caused by the incompetence of a succession of transport ministers, themselves, they had the gall to 'solve' the problem by further cutting back rail services. When it was still not possible to run trains according to the set timetables failed they cut back services even more.

So many public transport users, including myself, were left with no choice but to get around by car, thereby further contributing to Sydney's horrific gridlock that Johnj referred to.

No doubt Carr (notwithstanding his posturing as a supposed environmentalist) was inspired by thinking similar to that displayed in this article, and Sydneysiders are now paying dearly for it.

If Brisbanites don't act soon, we are just about set to follow Sydney's appalling example with the start of a series of astronomically expensive tunnel and tollway projects. The first, the North South Bypass Tunnel, at a cost of $2,000,000,000 works out at $400,000 per metre of road. For a fraction of this money, it would be possible to build a first rate public tranpsort system that would entice a large proportion of motorists to leave their vehicles at home.

For further information, visit http://www.notunnels.org.

It just seems to me that cities like Sydney and Melbourne are far too big for their own good these days, which is why I have no intention of living in Melbourne in the future, as much as there are some things I love about the place. Cities with comparable populations in other nations are either much smaller, or are themselves merging with many other cities in an endless urban landscape, so it's a lot easier to move people around.

One of the issues alluded to in the article is that Melbourne has a radial rail network. That's fine if you want to go from the outer suburbs to anywhere between where you live and the city, but if you want to go to another outer suburb, it's intolerable (and buses are just too slow) -- you virtually have to go all the way into the city and back out again. Who was the genius who designed that system? To build several rail lines as rings connecting each radial rail line would cost a lot now. Maybe it would be less expensive in the long run than building a lot more roads, but has anyone even considered it?

As to all the people talking about the looming shortage of oil, sure. However, it's not like we'd never be able to drive cars again. Admittedly, I'm no expert, but hasn't Brazil made a huge ethanol push? Wouldn't Australia be in a perfect position to do the same, or something similar? Don't we also have massive reserves of gas? I'm not saying we may be able to replace oil adequately (I don't know), but all the doomsday prophets need to think outside the box for just a second, if only to realise that it's not in the interests of big oil companies to make record profits in the final decade of oil supply, only to then go out of business.

It won't be fuel petroleum we'll miss so much, Shorbe. It'll be plastic.