Progressives and public transport advocates should be calling the Andrews government out on its nakedly political suburban rail 'loop' ploy

It wouldn't be as speedy as a train, especially one that only stops on average every 6 km, but light rail and buses can be made faster and more reliable by giving them exclusive road space, priority at intersections, and grade separation at key road junctions. Rather than the often meandering and frequent stops that characterise some current tram and bus services, routes would be direct with stops spaced at useful intervals e.g. 1 to 1.5 km.

There's no doubt it would be costly to set up such a 'grid' e.g. rolling stock, tracks, roadworks. But even if an outlay of as much as $25 billion for a mostly light rail network is assumed, the pay-off would be huge: it would provide public transport users with a much greater level of accessibility than the lone suburban rail line the Andrews government is promising to build.

Giving public transport greater priority on roads as I'm proposing would necessarily impact motorists. Fear of offending drivers is why governments routinely and ineffectually throw money at the problem rather than do what would actually work to reign-in excessive consumption of road space.

It would be difficult politically, but politicians shouldn't be given a free pass to splash around huge licks of public funds to shore up their political fortunes. Relative to the Andrews loop, the 'grid' would use roads more efficiently, provide a complete public transport network giving users access to the entire city, and at last offer a more competitive alternative to cars for cross-town trips (see also Is congestion charging a good idea? and Is congestion charging too inequitable?).

We need to think of public transport as a network that provides synergies. We won't get the "network effect" in a metropolis like Melbourne unless we're prepared to embrace multiple modes and, importantly, constraints on car use (see How can public transport work better in cities?).