Popular Entries
|
Monday, May 26. 2008What's wrong with Melbourne's public transport (Part 1): TrainsTrackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Compared to Sydney, Melbourne has an awesome public transport system
Yes, I certainly don't disagree with that, provided you're comparing the inner city only.
When you compare outer suburban areas, both systems are equally dismal.
The problem is that heavy rail lines can't be planned, commissioned and delivered in a single election term. Roads can be.
Yet Perth is building rail lines.
Or look at it another way: Eastlink as planned for decades, and has taken about 2 years to build. It's massive. Why can't railways be built like this?
Daniel: Three words in answer to your question: Sydney Airport Line. Now it costs more to travel three stops than four. Weird, hey?
And yet, Dikkii, the Sydney airport line is still cheaper, more comfortable and much more convenient to use than Melbourne's damned Skybus.
Not that I'm implying that the line should have been privately funded, of course. The surcharges have made Sydney's disjointed ticketing system even worse.
Oh I agree with that. Your second and third sentences were the points that I was attempting to make.
Hey you asked why we managed to build so many railways in the late 18th century and early 19th. It was because of a number of things, the then gold rush boosted the economy to a level not seen since and also because of the structure of the state government at the time. The government had a railways commission (The Victorian Railways Authority) which worked like Vic roads today (except for rail). Today we do not have such a structure for railways only roads. (I believe we should have one authority for all transport in Vic to over com this e.g Vic transit) . The second part to the reason is how they used to be financed, back then when a new railway was built the cost of building it was taxed onto the people who were served by it through rates. For example if you where paying $35 in rates a month for one year but the next year a rail line was built where you live then your rates would go up e.g to $40. This meant government money was only spent on keeping the railways operating, but even then because past usage levels for rail where so high this meant not much had to come from government, most came from the fares. I believe a similar tax could be used to pay for new railways today, "a congestion tax", this would mean any areas that have to many cars, a tax would be introduced to charge cars from entering this area and then that money be spent on the PT.
Well-aimed investment is what this state needs, not silly ticketing systems or gratuitous freeways.
|
Calendar
Recent Entries
Blog AdministrationFurther ReadingLicence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. ![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||