Re: [NSW] More Complaints on CityRail Southern Highlands

["Bradley Torr" <truenorth@one.net.au.SPAMTRAP>]

Geoff Lillico <glillic@msn.com.au> wrote in article
<JYEQ6.26123$hV3.36289@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> David
> I think you have been living in Bowral for too long. Decentralisation is
now
> dead and buried. 

Yet the same policies that are supposed to centralise this State's
population (urban consolidation) also contribute to the decentralisation
that is happening right now. The satellite regions - the 'Home Counties' of
NSW if you will - are all facing a flood of people, generally Anglo-Saxon
working families, desparate for cheap housing which has been denied to them
within Sydney's urban area by Government policies slowing the release of
new allotments and a new emphasis on non-family accomodation (apartments
and townhouses) away from traditional family housing. These urban refugees
also seek a quality environment away from what they see as the increasing
degradation and confinement of Sydney.

> It costs TOO MUCH to provide the infrastructure to these
> remote areas. 

Much new urban infrastructure is funded using Section 94 of the
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, which authorises local
councils to raise funds to pay for infrastructure from the developers of
urban real estate. I understand that new houses in the western part of
Liverpool City Council attract a Section 94 developer contribution of
around $10,000 towards service provision (e.g. street lighting, local
streets, playgrounds, etc.) I wonder if there could be a similar
'infrastructure levy' on new developments by State governments to fund
infrastructure that is the responsibility of the State - e.g. railways,
government buses, electricity and the like.

> In the meantime you and your silvertail
> neighbors will be stuck with the train service that was there when you
> decided to move to the Southern Highlands.

(1) You show quite an ignorance of the demography of the Southern Highlands
region! While there are many upper-class hobby-horse people up there - many
of them weekenders - who live on acreages, there are also many coalminers,
workers within the water supply services and some industry - the Berrima
cement works come to mind! On top of this traditional working-class
community there are also many new residents, the new commuter families
looking for housing at a reasonable cost. It is a socio-economically
diverse community!

(2) You also show ignorance of the forces that determine urban settlement
patterns. A Government which has helped create conditions (whether by
commission or omission) that has compelled many people to settle in
satellite regions such as the Highlands would be extremely hypocritical and
heartless if it were to say to the same people 'oh well, tough luck, you
made your choice, now live with it, you shouldn't have moved there in the
first place.'

> Governments are faced with a two-edged sword when it comes to spending
money
> on transport improvements. If the service to a government electorate is
> improved, they are accused of supporting their voters; if they improve
the
> service to an opposition held electorate they are assused of attempting
to
> buy votes. 

Are you saying that governments are completely neutral and give no regard
to pragmatic electoral considerations when it comes to capital works
spending? Not trying to disagree with you - even the best intentioned
governments have a tough job when it comes to dishing up the pork - just
seeking clarification.

> David, I can assure you that the Southern Highlands line is not the only
> CityRail services disrupted by trackworks on weekdays. Just ask any
commuter
> trying to travel over the Harbour Bridge or around the City Circle after
10
> pm on Mondays to Thursdays!

Agreed. I also agree with Al's point that rail isn't the only mode in which
maintenance and improvement works create disruption to that mode's users!

Regards
BT