Australian urban planning, public transport, politics, retrocomputing, and tech nerd. Recovering journo. Cat parent. Part-time miserable grump.

Cities for people, not cars! Tech for people, not investors!

  • 20 Posts
  • 52 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 5th, 2022

help-circle



  • @AllNewTypeFace Of course there were.

    For commuters:

    * More densification around existing stations and tram lines instead of suburban sprawl.

    * Upgrading buses across Melbourne to a 10-minute minimum frequency and straightening out existing bus routes.

    * Rolling out high-capacity signalling and automatic train control across the Melbourne suburban rail network

    * Building Metro 2 from Newport to Clifton Hill would double the number of trains that can run on the Hurstbridge and Mernda lines.

    * Building the Doncaster Railway.

    * Building the Heidelberg to Box Hill section of the SRL first.

    * Extending the 48 tram to Doncaster and giving it dedicated lanes for more of its journey.

    And then for freight, there’s a bunch of things too:

    * Converting more suburban lines to dual gauge.

    * Converting more regional Victorian lines to standard gauge

    * Electrifying regional rail and freight services

    * Building more multimodal facilities near existing rail lines.



  • @alcoholicorn Yeah, that’s not how it tends to work in Australia.

    What happens is a state government puts up a good chunk of time construction costs (as much as half in some cases), plus public land.

    In some cases, the freeway already exists, but the state government wants one more lane built, because it thinks that will ease congestion (as happened with sections of the Tullamarine and Monash Freeways in Melbourne).

    It gets handed off to Transurban, who builds it under a long-term operating agreement (30 years is common).

    In some cases, the agreements have clauses saying railways that compete with the toll road can’t be built.

    As the end of the lease approaches, Transurban offers to build one more lane — in exchange for extending the agreement.









  • @awelder @jedsetter @nictea @philip @fuck_cars You often hear from Melburnians that it’s the world’s most livable city, and how the CBD is laid out nicely in the Hoddle Grid is laid out compared to inner-city.

    And how Melbourne’s inner-suburban tram network means it has much better public transport than Sydney.

    And it’s true. Colonial Melbourne, funded by its gold rush, did a much better job at planning than early Sydney.

    But after the World Wars, it’s a very different story.

    Sydney is at least constrained by Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park to the north, the Royal National Park to the south, and the Blue Mountains to the west.

    That means the only places for new sprawl are either northwest past Rouse Hill, or southwest around Campbelltown and Camden.

    As a result, there’s a lot more pressure from developers to densify.

    Meanwhile, Melbourne just has the Dandenong Ranges to the east and Port Phillip Bay to the south.

    As a result, even right now, you have new housing estates past Pakenham, Melton, Wyndham Vale, and Craigieburn.

    As for sprawling Australian capitals, I think Perth has definitely been punching above its weight since the 2000s mining boom.

    There’s now continuous McMansions sprawl right down the Coast from north of Joondalup to south of Mandurah.

    And there’s new subdivisions that are closer to Bunbury than they are to the Perth or Fremantle CBDs.












  • @Simplicator @NarrativeBear Our whole economy is geared towards disposable consumerism.

    Yeah, we could make sturdy wooden chairs like the ones your grandma had at her dining table for 50-odd years.

    Or we could get new plastic chairs every five years or so from IKEA.

    The way things are set up, making 10 disposable chairs that last five years is far better for the economy than making one chair that lasts 50.

    There are plenty of things that could be user serviceable, repairable, repurposable or upgradable that aren’t because our economy is geared towards disposable consumerism.

    Even look at the economic measuring stick we use: GDP.

    If using economic activity as the measure of the health of your economy, then it’s far better to manufacture 10 chairs instead of one.

    But what if we were to use a different set of economic measurements? For example, the utility we gain from our goods, and many natural resources it takes to achieve that level of utility?

    By that measurement, manufacturing 10 chairs over 50 years instead of one for the same utility (sitting down during dinner) is a monumental waste.