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.