It's not an issue of distance, it's an issue of density. Every essential service becomes increasingly uneconomical as population density decreases. And I mean everything, such as sewage, power, telecoms, police, schools, medical services, public transport, roads, and so on. While it might not seem like much extra for the individual to drive 5km further to work each day, you've got to remember that all the goods and services consumed by the entire community into perpetuity needs to be moved that distance extra. All the infrastructure carrying said goods and services needs to be extended that distance extra. People don't realise how much all this extra distance cost, usually because they don't pay for it themselves - the costs are distributed amongst society . And because the area has fewer people thanks to lower density, the benefit of all this extra public expenditure is concentrated amongst fewer people than it potentially could be.P.K. wrote:Neither, I wrote in and genuinely asked why people are so against this project especially when they have no intension of living out that way and the devellopment will not effect them in the slightest, then to knock the whole northern suburbs! been to Hackem lately? and I don't appreciate being called a wanker by some knobhead who lives in the eastern suburbs who thinks Adelaide finishes at Gepps Cross.
I was just stating facts when clearly some things other people were saying were not quite right. One that cracks me up is how far away everyone thinks this place is, is it a distance thing or a time thing? Funny it takes just as long to get the 30km from Virginia to Gepps Cross as it does from Gepps Cross to the city. Put another spin on that, people who live in Virginia and work at Gepps Cross will do less damage to the environment with car pollution for example, than people living in Gepps Cross and working in the city, who's the bad ones now.
Like I said before, if they can flood proof the area (to a degree), then I think its a good idea. Thats my opinion.
Why am I interested? I live out there.
(A good example: Telstra doesn't want to service rural communities because they'd have to pass the costs onto metropolitan customers. Their competitors don't have such obligations and thus can easily under-cut Telstra's prices and take away market share. The disappearance of bank branches is another example)
Why do we care? Say a mass people suddenly move into medium and high density dwellings in the inner city. The local school needs to whack on an extra wing, the local medical centre needs to lease some more space and extra doctors and teachers need to be employed. These costs are passed onto consumers and taxpayers for the maintenance of the status quo. The concentrated demand means public transport services can made more frequent while still remaining cost effective, which in turn increases the attractiveness of public transport. Conversely, car usage is made less attractive due to the extra traffic. This is desirable as public transport uses less resources, is better for the environment and promotes social equality.
Compare this to an equal mass of people moving into low density dwellings beyond the current urban boundaries. An entirely new medical centre and school needs to be built, because the nearest one is too far away to be effective. Now instead of just being able to hire doctors and teachers, additional administrative staff need to be employed. Public transport becomes less economical because people live too far away from 'nodes' such as stations or interchanges where frequent services exist, and too far apart for providing services to economical. Car dependency is a result, with all the environmental and socio-economic effects that are caused, and extra roads need to be built. To maintain the status quo for the rest of the community, the costs passed onto taxpayers and consumers are greater than that in the first scenario, even though the increase the population is the same.
Of course, in reality, the status quo of services isn't always maintained for the new residents at the expensive of the old. It's well documented that public services deteriorate the further from a major centre the population is. Social inequality is the result, because those who need the essential services are usually those attracted to the low land values of the outer suburbs where services don't exist. This is why we're seeing a shift away from public housing in the outer suburbs in preference for inner areas, placing those who need help near the help they need.
