Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Diego Moses's avatar

The Age should be posting opinion pieces for and against SRL but I think you need to polish up on your argument.

One area would be to demonstrate how you came to the conclusion that the Glen Waverley extension was a direct contribution to its establishment as an Asian activity hub. You could easily claim that this area was more influenced by the shopping centre developments with examples of similar suburbs where there are no train services (Chadstone, Doncaster, Burwood, Vermont)

There is a lot of framing of the SRL criticisms being criticisms against any kind of metro transport service. I don’t believe that this is the case for most critics (especially experts and academics such as Michael Buxton, etc). You’re also advocating for inner city metro transport services with the likes of Seoul, and New York etc which are heavily reliant on linear MRT underground networks and then using these examples as an argument in support for SRL. SRL is not that kind of network, it is not a rapid transit network servicing a high number of inner city metropolitan stations. It would be better to focus on why/how SRL can fulfil those objectives as an alternative to an inner metro subway network.

In summary, the value is in an article that shows the specific benefits that the SRL would have to the transport network. The argument should be around why the SRL would be better than other metro rail projects as opposed to framing it as an argument for or against public transport.

- Diego Moses

Expand full comment

No posts