It is good to see an integrated approach being proposed, rather than the simplistic more road = less congestion formula we are usually expected to swallow.
I also agree it will likely be more difficult to change attitudes to travel than it will be to apply the solutions, technological or physical. The longer we cling to our determinedly individualistic ways the more serious the environmental and concomittant economic repercussions are going to be.
As a last comment, it is disturbing that we have to assume that there are always, for the foreseable future, going to be more and more people demanding more and more transport. Is there any notion that at some stage we need to reach a balance, or is our "urban footprint" eventually going to turn around and stomp on us?

“So what can we do about it?”

Well, I get the feeling that it will largely take care of itself in the next few years as fuel prices bite and a significant portion of the populace take up alternatives to daily commuting by car.

It is well and truly time to stop building new roads or upgrading existing ones. Let's keep up basic maintenance by all means but otherwise redirect this enormous expenditure into implementing alternatives to private car use, and into developing renewable sources of fuel.

This could include some pretty strong incentives (extra charges for car use in crowded areas) for people to get onto public transport, scooters, bicycles and even their…..wait for it….. feet!! (:>()

Let’s do this before we are forced into it by rising fuel prices. We should be preparing for this very large change rather than just reacting to it as it happens.

Oh, and the other thing we MUST do in places like Sydney and SEQ is plan for limits to population growth…. and in the country as a whole.

I honestly don't know how we are going to deal with this problem without massively re-designing our cities. People often have to take very irregular routes across cities to their jobs that anything other than a car cannot deal with anywhere near effectively, especially if they have to drop the kids off to school en route, and do some shopping after work. It's all well and good for people to talk about public transport, but Sydney and Melbourne are already massive sprawling cities and I can't help but feel that the horse has already bolted.

Perhaps what might be a good idea would be to strongly encourage growth of both industry and residential areas in more regional areas, and start with a very well laid out system whereby where people work, play, learn and shop are all more sensibly integrated or located. Basically, we need to rethink our concept of the city and make it far more user-friendly. Ultimately, I'm sure people don't like all the congestion, but they actually need some really practical solutions, and I'm not sure those proposed will do much to mitigate the grind of a daily cross-country jaunt across Melbourne's outer eastern suburbs.

Like I said at the start, I don't know how we're going to deal with the problem. I'm sure however it is tackled, it will draw a lot of flak though, so I'm glad it's not me trying to make the decisions.

Shorbe, I can’t think of a good reason why we would want to encourage growth (human expansion) in regional areas.

You seem to be saying that we should start from scratch and build new commuter-friendly cities. This seems like a hugely energy- and labour-intensive solution.

Yes some people will find it hard to do without their car for daily home to work and school commuting. But the majority of us won’t, and with a bit of government assistance/persuasion they will not find it too hard to take up alternative methods of transport.

Therein lies the main part of our answer – getting a considerably larger portion of people into car-pooling and onto trains, buses, scooters, bicycles… and for trips of up to several kilometres – their good ol’ feet. Or some combination of these.

Ludwig: Whether people like it or not, we're not going to stop human population growth. Even if we continue to have a birth rate below replacement levels, there will still be massive population pressures from other parts of the world that will affect us and I don't believe even if we wanted to that we could become Fortress Australia in that respect.

As such, if unchecked, the major population centres on the east coast will continue to growth while large sections of regional Australia continue to decline. However, I believe Melbourne (and probably several other cities) is getting to the point where it is unliveable (a relative term of course) unless you're an inner city professional, so the solution is either to rethink the way new suburbs are created on the edge of it, or for some really clever regional areas to plan their development really well and offer a heap of incentives to business and people to move there.

I certainly don't think we use our present transport options very well, but what you're proposing simply can't or won't work for a city like Melbourne which is enormous. What you're proposing is fine for someone who lives within ten, or maybe even twenty kilometres of the city, or even someone who does everything basically along one of the radial train routes. However, there are large numbers of people who live out in a no-man's land where there are no trains. Travel routes to work, school, shopping centres, etc. would require incredibly complex and inefficient changes of buses or car pools. It simply wouldn't work.

When I lived in London, at one point, I lived in outer London, eight miles from where I worked. Whichever way I went, it required at least three different transport options and took a minimum of an hour and a half in one direction if everything connected properly and there were no delays or cancellations. I wasn't going to be there long enough, but otherwise, why wouldn't someone drive in such a situation?

Shorbe, in attempting to move city sprawl to regional areas, you risk ending up with another Ballarat situation where many Melbourne people have taken up residence in the last ten years thanks to the push from local & state Governments. For the original locals, the town has become a nightmare of conjestion at peak hours where major roads are gridlocked and the Ballarat Shire's answer to transport is to put another bloody round-about in what used to be a free flowing road. Regional cities such as Ballarat and Bendigo are not and never will be equiped to deal with large influxes of "refugees" from capital centres. Public transport in Ballarat is woeful and serves only the local area with none servicing smaller outlying areas. The major shopping centres are over crowded and small, even on Sundays. There isn't a single roadway where a motorist's route isn't impeded by round-abouts, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights or stop & give way signs. The water storages are dangerously low, the lake has returned to the swamp which it once was, vandalism rampant, unemployment rife and still the local council demands more and more people come to destroy the place further. Ballarat is getting close to what Melbourne was 30 years ago and yet by 2030, they expect the population to double what it is now. Decentralisation is definately not the answer either.

“Ludwig: Whether people like it or not, we're not going to stop human population growth.”

Shorbe, I guess we will just to vehemently disagree on this.

In Australia we can very easily direct ourselves towards a stable population. And with the rise of awareness of big-picture environmental issues, the need for true sustainability, and the advent of OLO and the internet in general, this message WILL spread and take strong root in our political arena…soon.

Of course, efforts to stabilise population on the national, state and regional levels has everything to do with traffic congestion and a million other worsening factors in our lives. It is just completely nonsensical to put all our efforts into alternative transport, alternative fuel sources, etc… while just sitting back and accepting that a rapid increase in pressure on these vehicles, infrastructure and energy sources will continue unendingly.

Wildcat, a similar sort of increase in traffic congestion and decline in many aspects of quality of life has taken place in Cairns and Townsville over the last couple of decades. And still the mayors tell us that growth is good and only good… and faster growth is better!

Decentralisation is definitely not the answer.

Ballarat is too close to Melbourne to constitute effective decentralisation. It is plain old urban sprawl because the key engine of economic growth and wealth concentration, the government, is still in Melbourne. So people will still commute from Ballarat and exacerbate congestion costs. And these costs will then be incorporated into the cost of delivering both government services and commercial goods and services.

But form a new state of Western Victoria, with capital at Ararat, and a new engine of economic growth and wealth concentration will shift some of the growth in people and their cars to the new capital. And that new capital will be able to deliver government services to its people and businesses with only a fraction of the congestion costs built in.

Add another capital at Wangaratta, and another at Sale, and the unsustainable edge will be taken off the growth rate of Melbourne. Melbourne will have bought the time that is needed to actually solve some of the congestion problems, not just postpone them. And their costs of delivering government services will stop spinning out of control. Who knows, service may even improve.

Well wouldn’t that be great! Burden Wangaratta and Sale and Ararat…. and Lakes Entrance and Warrnambool and Horsham and Mildura, with Melbourne’s overflow.

Well what a top reason for wanting these towns to be regional capitals!

Encourage rapid growth in these towns with all its negative effects (oh and a few positive ones, no doubt)… and meanwhile not significantly relieve the pressure on Melbourne at all… because it is just so much bigger, and so far pressured beyond transport infrastructure capability now.

Nope. This sort of decentralisation is just not an answer to anything… unless it goes into boosting flagging economies in small centres that have suffered population decline… and is then stoppable at a predetermined optimum level.

The answer lies with overall limits to growth.

.
There’s something interesting here in my old foe Perseus’ comments;

“….the unsustainable edge will be taken off the growth rate of Melbourne.”

YES!! Population growth at anything like the current is indeed UNSUSTAINABLE!!

This is a revelation coming from one the harshest critics of my comments on population stabilisation and sustainability matters.

.
Something of a related nature that is right up your alley Persy: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=29

Ludwig: Australia's population isn't growing out of control. We have birth rates below sustainable levels and immigration is quite under control. The problem is the urban sprawl at the fringes of the big cities, not the numbers of people. Having said that, urban sprawl is largely a part of the Australian way of life because we don't have an apartment dwelling psyche. I wouldn't want us to either.

It's quite possible for our suburban lifestyle to be sustainable and have slight population growth, but we have to get off this notion of all roads leading to Rome so to speak. If someone had any vision within local governments (or a group thereof), they'd create new suburbs so that they were largely sustainable in all ways, and so that a lot of what people needed was nearby. It makes more sense to have good planning (and good transport) rather than to have great transport to make up for poor planning. However, as Perseus pointed out, a large part of the problem is that we have states (even Victoria) with massive land areas, millions of people, and politicians and bureaucrats tucked away in one little corner who often have no idea of, or concern for, anyone or anything more than three blocks away in the CBD in terms of location, or one election away in terms of time. You want to talk about government control, regulation and planning being the panacea, yet state governments have no idea about anything. That's not entirely their fault -- how could anyone be responsive to the variety of needs of millions?

Also, regarding regional areas, you have a sort of parochialism that borders on xenophobia. You talk as if the country is for country people and no one else has any right to move there. People from the city don't move to the country just to be mean and stuff it up for people already there. Why wouldn't or shouldn't they move there? Also, if regional areas play their cards right, it can lead to a renaissance for dying areas.

Shorbe and Perseus, the original article was in relation to road congestion and I'm simply letting you know what's happened to Ballarat. I moved out years ago when I realised what was coming. Unfortunately, I still have to travel daily to work in the place. It's a nightmare and simply because of in increase in pop of around 20-25,000 extra people. Can't wait until it's 180,000 as predicted by 2030! The biggest problem with towns like Ararat, Ballarat, Bendigo and others is that they hang on to their heritage culture for grim death. These are not truly progressive cities. If they were, they'd consider building freeway over the retched places so we could get away from them faster on our way to other centers of work....Melbourne, but no. They prefer to build the population with no regard to future crowding problems and all in the name of greedy consumerism. Shorbe, if our population isn't growing out of control, how come we can't walk around for bloody people everywhere? We could 30 years ago. Humans World wide are like the famed "bacteria in a Petri dish" and we don't have the brains of bacterium, therefore we'll breed ourselves out of existance. Sorry Ludwig. I don't see a cure for the bacteria.

It is all a question of comparative economic, social and environmental cost. Add 400,000 people (10%) to Melbourne over two decades and each new person will impose congestion costs on the existing residents of about $8,000 a year. Current expenditure per person by state governments is only $6,000 each year so this is a very significant uncosted expense.

Encourage 200,000 of them to live in three new regional capitals and their surrounds and the cost of settling each batch of 70,000 (3,500 x 20 years) will be met entirely by the settlers. They will impose minimal congestion costs on the existing residents because the character and scale of the changes will be more easily managed.

Congestion costs really don't start to kick in until an urban population reaches a million people so the net savings to the whole population of the shifting of 200,000 people is in the order of $1.6 billion a year. And these savings are far in excess of any likely duplication costs from additional state administrations.

Here in Brisbane, the population concentration is about to reach the point where most of the Bay is closed for recreational fishing. If we had three seperate states instead of one, the population pressure would have been spread over three coastlines so we could all continue to enjoy the very benefits that attracted us here in the first place.

The purpose of a state is not to create an ever bigger, ever uglier and more expensive and unlivable metropolis. Effective decentralisation is the key to maintaining economic growth while limiting metropolitan growth.

Wildcat: People everywhere? Could you be a bit more specific? I'm not saying there hasn't been a population increase, just that it's not out of control.

Perseus: You're definitely right about the one million population, although I don't think it gets too unbearable until it's a few million. I don't intend to live in Melbourne in the future. I find it too much of a rat race now and not being on a six figure income, I couldn't actually live anywhere that was close enough for me to partake of its good points without getting caught in the rat race to do so. Faced with the prospect of a long commute to partake of the cultural attractions, I know I wouldn't partake of them that often, so it would defeat the purpose of living in Melbourne. I might as well live in the country, which is what I now do. It's all very well for people to talk about not using cars, but who can afford to live in a civilised part of Melbourne that has decent public transport or is within walking or cycling distance of the nice things? Earning six figures a year affords someone the opportunity to walk in inner Melbourne (unless one wants to be resigned to renting, which I don't). The rest of us have to drive.

“Ludwig: Australia's population isn't growing out of control. We have birth rates below sustainable levels and immigration is quite under control.”

Yes in one way it is quite under control shorbe. Under the control of those who want it to be rapidly growing. Our very rate of immigration is quite deliberate. But don’t be fooled – our collective birthrate is certainly not below sustainable levels.

Population growth is not really under control however in SEQ or some other places, and neither is the provision of infrastructure to cater for that growth.

“The problem is the urban sprawl at the fringes of the big cities, not the numbers of people.”

The problem as it pertains to road congestion is about much more than just the sprawling urban fringe… and the ever-growing number of people certainly is a problem in relation to all sorts of other things.

“It's quite possible for our suburban lifestyle to be sustainable and have slight population growth”.

Maybe. But we certainly don’t have slight population growth. It is very rapid and with no end in sight.

“Why wouldn't or shouldn't they move there?”

Shorbe you have completely ignored these comments in my last post; “oh and a few positive ones, no doubt” and “unless it goes into boosting flagging economies in small centres that have suffered population decline… and is then stoppable at a predetermined optimum level.”

Some movement to country areas could be fine. But we’ve got to realise that there are good and bad aspects of pop increase in regional centres… and we would have to be very careful to see that the bad ones didn’t prevail. And of course, if overall population growth is just going to continue at anything like the same rate, what’s the point of creating more population-stressed centres? There is actually a lot of merit in that circumstance in confining it to the larger centres

Perseus

You make me feel light-headed. You’re you’re you’re a talkin my language!! !!

YES, continuous pop growth in Melbourne will lead to net negative impacts. And it is possible that the same amount of growth will lead to less negative or neutral or even positive impacts in some smaller centres, if it is well-managed.

But this sort of decentralisation only makes sense if the overall drivers of continuous pop growth are dealt with, ie; high immigration, and to a much lesser extent, crazy attempts to increase the fertility rate….and in SEQ; transmigration.

Yes, decentralisation does have a part to play in the greater plan, but certainly not in isolation.

But I don’t know where you get the idea that settling costs in regional centres would be met entirely by those settlers.

“Congestion costs really don't start to kick in until an urban population reaches a million people.”

Where does this notion come from? Congestion in Bendigo, Ballarat, Cairns, Townsville, Mandurah and Bunbury are quite considerable, with populations far below the million mark. It depends on existing road and other infrastructure and the costs and practicalities of upgrading it.

“The purpose of a state is not to create an ever bigger, ever uglier and more expensive and unlivable metropolis.”

Well that’s for sure. So let’s embrace limits to growth….. and not just get sidetracked into believing that a redistribution of the problems will give us the solution.

“Effective decentralisation is the key to maintaining economic growth while limiting metropolitan growth.”

Limiting overall growth is the key, and limited decentralisation is probably part of the solution.

Ludwig, the congestion costs for major cities was calculated by the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics in a report in 1996. It calculated the cost of new freeways, petrol wasted in heavy traffic and time wasted by business. This was based on the estimated population growth to 2025.

We divided the total annual cost by the population increase to get a cost to the existing community of each new arrival, natural increase or migrant.

In Sydney it was $4,000, Melbourne $8,000 and Brisbane it was $12,000 each. The difference was that Sydney already has a lot of congestion, Melbourne is well on the way and Brisbane, in 1996 was just starting to get seriously congested.

There is nothing like the same level of congestion in cities like Townsville with 130,000 people. This would only involve 50,000 houses which, at 10 houses/hectare is only 50km2. This many houses would fit within a circle of 4km radius.

A city of five times bigger (650,000) would fit in 250km2 and a notional radius of 9km. That is, five times the population but only 2.25 times the radius. A notional city of 4.5 million people would need 1,730km2 or a radius of 24km. The distance from Penrith to Parramatta (the centre of Sydney) is 40km and most of the population is in the outer rings and must have larger and ever more expensive roads to get anywhere near their CBD.

In the Townsville example above, an additional 25% population growth over 20 years (26,000) would need 10,000 houses on 10km2 and when added to the existing area of 50km2, the radius only increases to 4.37km. The 25% population increase only increases the radius by 10%.

The benefits of shifting population growth from major cities to the regions is VERY , SIGNIFICANT. And everywhere in any city up to 650,000 is within a half hour bicycle ride. If we must deal with peak oil then better to do it in a small city.

Decentralisation is a key risk minimisation strategy.

“In Sydney it was $4,000, Melbourne $8,000 and Brisbane it was $12,000 each.”

Perseus, if these figures show anything, they show that the per-person effect is smaller in larger centres. This goes for both the average negative impact generated by new residents and the average impact on existing residents. Sydney has both the highest rate of population growth and the lowest per-person additional effects on traffic congestion. If this trend can be extrapolated then small centres such as Townsville suffer much more greatly.

Economies of scale, when considering only the factors relating to these figures, strongly suggest that a policy of centralisation is much better than a policy of spreading the problems around.

It would take big increases in the rates of population growth in many regional towns and cities across the country to significantly lower the growth rates in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and SEQ. It would mean a massive reshuffling of the demographic. There would be no doubt that the negative impacts would be far greater than the positive ones.

If we were to do this, we would have to implement some pretty strong policies to make people go where we wanted them. This would meet with a whole lot of resistance from those who think of this sort of thing as draconian or antidemocratic, and from many people who specifically want to live in a particular place.

Regional centres with rapid growth rates have really suffered in the past. For example, Cairns had a very rapid growth rate in the 80s and 90s. Along with it went very large increases in unemployment and crime rate, increases in rates and rentals, and various other things, all of which had a strong negative impact of the quality of life for most original residents.

Rapid population growth in SEQ is the result of a change in population distribution from southern centres. It has resulted in a new set of significant problems. …while not alleviating the problems in Vic and NSW that people moved away from.

Obviously, changes in distribution are far far less important than addressing the overall population growth factor.

Pure sophistry, Ludwig. Sydney' congestion costs are very very high and I suggest you drop down to the intersection of Silverwater Road and Parramatta Road and tell the guys that commuters in Townsville have it worse. They could use a good laugh, but they may get a better one once you are covered in tar and feathers.

Your capacity to argue in favour of some sort of economies of scale in respect of traffic congestion, based only on the changes in costs, not the total cost, demonstrates that you understand nothing of the concept.

And your waffle about regions not being able to take up the population slack makes it clear that you are looking for any pretext to oppose a solution that is outside your own draconian preference.

Regional Qld is still 1/3rd of the total population so an increase in regional population of the same rate as the SE has recorded to date, will really take the unsustainable edge of the growth of SEQ. But, of course, numbers were never your forte because they actually have to add up.

Ludwig: Australia's population isn't growing rapidly though. At least two different sources (http://www.mnforsustain.org/australian_population_19992101.htm and http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html#People) put the growth at about 1.0% per year, and the first also considers that it will most likely drop well below that by the middle of the century. That's hardly growth that's out of control.

With good planning, there's no reason why that should be any sort of problem in this country. We produce more than enough resources to handle that, it's just that often, we don't manage them well enough (eg. we don't collect rainwater or use water several times). As Perseus has pointed out, de-centralisation would be effective because you wouldn't get unwieldy population centres with massive radii and circumfrences. This doesn't have to be draconian at all. All it would require would be good planning and the right incentives to get people to move to the right places in the right ways. As I keep saying, a large part of why the big cities in this country are getting to the point they are is because all the different activities in people's lives (work, school, play, shopping) are so spread out and no one thought about them. There's no reason we couldn't build employment hubs ringed by residential suburbs with all the other facilities people need and desire fully integrated into such communities and slash congestion. Instead, people travel long distances all over the place. That's the problem, not the number of people or cars.

Interestingly, there was an article in today's Age about how Vancouver has knocked Melbourne off its perch for World's Most Liveable city. Decades ago, all the local councils in Vancouver got together to plan things sensibly, and they also keep developers and architects on a short leash. Vancouver has actually experienced a reduction of travel times over the past decade.

“Sydney's congestion costs are very very high”

Of course they are Perseus, in both monetary terms and quality-of-life terms. But on a per-capita basis, the rate of increase in these costs is relatively small. You quoted the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics figures on this.

“I suggest you drop down to the intersection of Silverwater Road and Parramatta Road and tell the guys that commuters in Townsville have it worse.”

Go on twist it around Persy. You are the one who said that “The difference was that Sydney already has a lot of congestion” The fact is that congestion has got worse in Townsville overall in recent years while it hasn’t changed that much in Sydney. But of course it is not as bad overall in Townsville, by a long way.

“Your capacity to argue in favour of some sort of economies of scale in respect of traffic congestion, based only on the changes in costs, not the total cost, demonstrates that you understand nothing of the concept.”

I had a good laugh over this. So are you suggesting that there are no economies of scale involved and that the effects are the same everywhere? If so then what’s the point of decentralisation?? Methinks you shoot yourself in the foot again!

“And your waffle about regions not being able to take up the population slack makes it clear that you are looking for any pretext to oppose a solution that is outside your own draconian preference.”

It is not a matter of regions not being able to take population “slack”, it is a matter of the effects of this on those regions and towns and the ability for this population movement to relieve pressure on the big cities. You know what we are talking about here Perseus, so who do you think you are trying to mislead?

It seems to me that your desire to get people to move to smaller cities and towns to the extent that you desire is a lot closer to a draconian policy than anything that I have ever espoused.

continued

“Regional Qld is still 1/3rd of the total population so an increase in regional population of the same rate as the SE has recorded to date, will really take the unsustainable edge of the growth of SEQ. But, of course, numbers were never your forte because they actually have to add up.”

An increase in regional Qld that is sufficiently large to really take the pressure off the SEQ growth rate would have to be very considerable…on top of already rapid growth rates in many coastal towns, which will be exactly where the vast majority of people would head, if a policy of discouragement to settle in SEQ was implemented. Only with a policy of much tighter regulation would people be forced or ‘strongly encouraged’ to move to smaller centres away from the coast.

You are saying the current growth rate I SEQ is unsustainable. But in our various previous exchanges you have repeatedly poo-pooed this very notion!!

Anyone who just accepts that the overall number will continue to increase with no end in sight simply hasn’t a clue about the basics of arithmetic.

Perseus you now use that word ‘sustainability’ quite often, and talk about economies of scale – two things that you didn’t appear to have any concept of a short while back. And the extreme insults have dropped right away too. So I think we are on the right track!

.
“Ludwig: Australia's population isn't growing rapidly though.”

Shorbe I answered this point last time. 1%pa is far from a trivial rate of growth.

The question should be, why do we want to maintain any net population growth? Why not put a moratorium on it until we can be confident that we have got our sustainability regime worked out?

“As Perseus has pointed out, de-centralisation would be effective because you wouldn't get unwieldy population centres with massive radii and circumfrences.”

But we already have these.

Building new “employment hubs” or expanding existing towns is just not the answer in itself. But as part of an overall sustainability strategy, it might have a place.

Ludwig: If you looked at the population projections, you'd see that our population is actually tipped to level off (or even drop) by mid-century. Despite what you're saying, Australia simply isn't experiencing massive population growth. One percent per year is nowhere near massive and it's not out of control. The reason some urban areas are out of control is because there are too many vested (short term) interests involved.

As far as limiting population growth, firstly, you can't stop people having children. Secondly, as far as immigration goes, I'm fundamentally opposed to restricting the movement of people anywhere. Just because our ancestors were in the right place at the right time, why do you think that therefore gives us the right to then close the door on others? I think this sort of "I was here first, and why should I have to change to accomodate anyone else?" attitude is central to your argument though.

You keep talking about sustainability as though Australia is on the verge of collapse if we don't deal with the population right now. It's not. We have ample resources of all forms in this country. The problem is that we use those resources, including space and our transport networks, incredibly inefficiently. Sure, if we keep building vast suburbs in the way that we are currently we're going to keep having problems, but I believe we'll have to smarten our act up on this. If someone had the vision to plan sensibly, people would flock to such a place and it would become a model for urban planning everywhere. I'm sure people don't like how things are now, and people generally don't want a decline in standard of living (including more congestion), so there will naturally come a time when all of these things sort themselves out and it won't have to involve Big Brother wielding a big stick, which also seems to be part of your general approach.

Ludwig, the only reason people don't settle in the inland is that the retirees prefer the coast and this, combined with the reverse multiplier effect of governement overheads, means the inland centres are slowly contracting. That is no recipe for attracting the kind of investment needed to make these towns more attractive to all settlers.

But once these government leakages are plugged then the re-circulating money will provide the recipe for further investment and additional growth. A healthy local economy may, for example, make the risk associated with an inland artificial surfing beach with perfect barrels every 30 seconds much more acceptable. And don't tell me that such a place wouldn't be packed with grey nomads who are disgusted with what Byron and Noosa have become.

I understand that you regard the term growth as a negative in every sense and this clouds your capacity to comprehend that a new settler in a small town actually prevents further decline first and then underpins the continued viability of the local community. But your attempts to use entirely self contradictory arguments to support your case are getting a touch pathetic.

Unlike a compulsory population ceiling, decentralisation needs no big sticks. Once the economic fundamentals of a regional economy are restored then all sorts of inducements, incentives and economic carrots are possible. Nothing increases the number, and improves the quality of options like a growing economy.

"Two paths diverged in the woods,
I took the one least travelled by
and that made ALL the difference".

“I understand that you regard the term growth as a negative in every sense…”

Do you now Perseus?

Well in that case you don’t understand too much at all about what I am saying.

Growth in terms of improvements in efficiency of resource usage and all sorts of other good developments is what I’d call positive growth.

Growth in terms of continuous human expansion, which exerts ever-greater pressure on our resource base and environment, and which works against the development of better efficiencies and other technologies, is very much negative growth.

However, growth in terms of expansion in some places is no doubt a good thing, if it helps those communities, helps alleviate growth pressure on other places and helps our society and nation overall, in a sustainable manner.

I have said this sort of thing many times on this forum on threads that you partake in. So I therefore ask…. do you deliberately misrepresent me, as you have been wont to do ever since we first ‘met’, or does your polarised way of viewing everything just lead you straight to the ‘all or nothing’ simplistic and all too often completely wrong impression of other peoples' views?

Shorbe

[I’m just back from a couple of weeks out bush]

“If you looked at the population projections, you'd see that our population is actually tipped to level off (or even drop) by mid-century.”

Yes…without immigration! With immigration at anything like its current level, our population will just keep on growing.

“Despite what you're saying, Australia simply isn't experiencing massive population growth.”

Not compared to some African or Asian countries.

“One percent per year is nowhere near massive and it's not out of control.”

1% pa is not that small. It means a doubling time of about 72 years. Growth rates are much higher in SEQ, Perth, and lots of smaller coastal centres. It is not out of control. In fact, the immigration rate and various regional rates are just fine by the federal govt, and relevant state and most relevant local govts.

“The reason some urban areas are out of control is because there are too many vested (short term) interests involved.”

The reason some growth rates are so high is indeed at least partly due to too many vested interests.

“As far as limiting population growth, firstly, you can't stop people having children.”

Limiting population growth in Australia has got nothing to do with stopping anyone from having kids. And in my view, everyone should be able to have as many kids as they want, just as long as the average family size is not greater than replacement level (~2.05). We don’t even need to introduce incentives to have fewer kids. But I would argue that we most definitely should not have incentives to have more kids, such as Costello’s parent bribe, er um…baby bonus.

More next time