capitalist wrote:I agree with you re:businesses leaving. You would need to ensure that the area doesn't rely on 1 single place of emplyment for a large part of the community and it is a diverse economy, having it as a regional hub should help that but until it grows it would always be a fiar risk I guess.
I wonder if there's any way of following Canberra's example? Originally it was dominated by a single industry (albeit not one that there was any risk of losing). Now in terms of desirability of moving there it's a serious rival to the big five.
As for subsidy, the logical thing would be to subsidize infrastructure costs rather than ongoing costs. That's happening to some extent with the NBN, although as the government want NBNCO to make a profit it can only be cross subsidy.
In regards to emissions, I agree with you also, But my counter agruement would be that we have a clean sheet to work with meaining inefficiecies seen in the current setup of say, Adelaide could be avoided (PT intergrated into the growth).
It would actually be harder to integrate PT into the growth of a city where the demand isn't already there than it would be to integrate it into the growth of Adelaide.
its a pie in the sky idea, but one I think worth exploring. I'm still not convinced it should be Murray Bridge, something further away from Adelaide would be better, mainly to avoid overlap with services and business that already exist
Avoiding overlap means losing the benefit of the attractions of Adelaide. It's no coincidence that Queensland's population's concentrated in the SE.
But I really think this discussion is taking entirely the wrong approach. Rather than building a major population hub for its own sake, we should look at each region of SA and determine whether it needs more people, and if so, why it does,how they can be accommodated and how they can be attracted. The size of the city
may be one factor that attracts them, but it would be very difficult to make a city big enough to do that.