Sadly, heavy commuter rail for Australia is battling against a changing economic geography and a changed society. An "all roads lead to Rome" centralised economic model (much like mega Chinese cities, or mega centres like NYC or London) can work for heavy commuter rail. But in our region, only around 10% of jobs are in the inner city, for which rail is well suited provided you can access a station with convenience. The greatest growth in jobs is not in the inner city, but across suburban centres. These are not typically serviced by rail.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitk-d5YT28UGRijqVnDrkdj761GffAjBEoCDnAjtS1dMlCWlfiGQUCGSLXBjCERh-NNO2qQ_0Bo5wDnPGOWNsjnfhJEL1RdGJfiROwQhMTyqsBZ7jx3PG3ZXoGaCJAawYWEhtNgDph-TIdbZYhs1TmiSiFjU1nf_imqIYkZCBXIoXrpSJEGfiP1Rq3xoGd/s893/Picture1.png)
Little wonder then that there is a high correlation between proximity to the CBD and use of public transport. Why? Because people who live in middle and outer suburbs do so because they don't work in the CBD. People with jobs in the CBD prefer to live closer to it, and are also more likely to use a service which is CBD centred. It's not rocket science.
Advertisement
(As an aside, proposals by The Greens to make public transport free would therefore most benefit inner city residents who already earn higher incomes and own more expensive real estate. And who work in the CBD. It will be of no benefit to lower income suburban workers who would in all likelihood need to pay for it via higher taxes).
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitYMPWVVLEdH_6xI_K2CdqyoKOGY2GF0m9MiRyRM-vJQOxIxP-zYwEb6WWDJ5nxhUe0_eXq4Hg2P-z1DTpv0566v0OrG_7rXuW_DlImBRetH2stZy5NzMEcBKfjNXtJiI5HvgAYYM18rI4wrLzfVQAT-yjdago11GWrCjBVZJ7tgzqnPssY6_jvqK_Vrtt/s602/Picture2.png)
Plus, once those tracks are in the ground, the wires overhead and the stations in place, there's no changing that route - ever. Irrespective of how demand and economic geography might change, you're stuck with that network. Buses and projects like the Metro can be re-routed, but not heavy rail.
In addition to that is social change. Trains are fixed route, schedule-based services. They were suited to a time when the trip to work did not involve any side trips and you scheduled your trips around the train timetable. For many, those trips now change every day – dropping kids to school, picking up from sport, gym classes, shopping for groceries… any number of reasons why a fixed route, fixed schedule service doesn't appeal to as many people as it once did.
You might think the basic numbers and reality is sinking in? Not it seems with any number of economically illiterate politicians who offer nothing more than glib phrases and vague promises about "congestion busting" while proposing projects that are budget busting, and supported without transparent business cases due to "commercial in confidence" reasons.
So we are spending tens and perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars on a mode of transport which is best suited to a minority of inner city workers, and which currently carries fewer than 100,000 people in the region, and which, despite spending many many billions more, is possibly unlikely to carry many more people in the foreseeable future.
Advertisement
Who wins in this? Loads of consultants doing multi million dollar business cases which will never be put up for scrutiny, sheltered industries and work practices, and a very small number of commuters who will get better service at the expense of a majority who won't.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
11 posts so far.