Isn't long-term planning for urban public transport a no-brainer?

Second, and again similar to the Government, there're no initiatives to address excessive car use by making driving less competitive relative to other modes. The Plan would make public transport much better for those who use it, but it won't drive significant mode shift away from cars in the absence of a policy that suppresses car use e.g. congestion pricing. It's a mistake to assume that traffic congestion by itself will be enough to make driving unattractive compared to public transport, even when the latter is much improved.

Third, the Institute doesn't say what else would not be funded in order to pay for the required capital and operating costs of the Plan. For example, what potential initiatives would be foregone in the other two big budget areas, Health and Education? Of course, this is a problem with the way both the Government and the Opposition present their project promises, too.

Fourth, while the Plan is multi-modal in the sense it covers the range of track-based public transport, it only makes passing reference to the infrastructure requirements of other modes like buses, bicycles, walking and cars. Most importantly, there's no budget provision for these other modes, even though most of them will be required in their own right and even though the Plan would drive demand for some of them. While the "out" here is that it's specifically a rail plan, all parties need to take an integrated approach.

***

The Rail Futures Institute has made an important contribution to the public debate on transport. It might've had a larger impact had the Institute got around to releasing its promised detailed report, which still bafflingly remains in hiding. The Melbourne Rail Plan, as revealed in summary form, highlights the failure of both the Government and the Opposition to release to the public a comprehensive multi-modal Plan (you can call it a "vision" if you want) for how transport might be addressed as the metropolitan area grows.