Week 20: Train In Vain
Week 20: Train In Vain
Catching trains in Scandinavia and thinking about trains in Melbourne
I flew into Copenhagen on Tuesday, collected my bag, passed through customs, walked down the travelator to Kastrup’s airport railway station and was quickly on a train into Sweden heading to Kristianstad. The Skånetrafiken travel app for the southern Swedish län (county) of Skåne covers Copenhagen as a local destination, so there’s no need to purchase a special ticket to travel between the two countries, public transport within the Öresund region of Skåne and eastern Denmark, is fully integrated. It is incredibly easy travel around the region and doing so fills me with a great amount of joy.
As I sat down on the train I opened up Twitter to catch up on developments while I’d been in the air and immediately saw that the leader of the Victorian Liberal Party stating that the party would scrap the building of Melbourne’s Suburban Rail Loop if they win the next election.
The Victorian branch of Australia’s Liberal Party is one of the world’s great self-destructive forces, and they currently going through the most extraordinary phase of political clownery and self-administered public humiliation. There is no way they could win an election any time soon to halt the project. But the fact that the prospect of the Suburban Rail Loop has enabled the Labor Party to convert several formerly safe Liberal Party seats in Melbourne’s south-east into strong Labor ones is a good indication of just how strange it is for the Liberal Party to oppose the project. They have become a party desperate to lose (I’ve a piece in the works on the federal Liberals and the psychological gains from losing).
While this is quite amusing, there is nothing I find more serious than opposition to building new train lines. This made my train ride to Kristianstad less pleasant than it should have been. Having been awake for 40 hours didn’t help.
As a general rule, Melbourne needs more train lines, every suggested train line is a good idea, and they should all be built with immediate effect. The first item of any and every budget should be money dedicated to building new trains lines as almost everything positive in this world flows from having more trains. There’s no such thing as too many. I have written previously about the “gamechanger” of the once-proposed Metro 2 line.
Of course, this is not a perspective widely shared in Australia. Despite strong rail investments in the late 1800s and early 1900s we have become an incredibly train-shy people. Melbourne’s current rail network was in place by 1930 – when the city was less than a fifth of its current population size and had far less of an urban sprawl – with additions to it since then being mostly about frequency and flow, not about new destinations or ways to move around the city.
The reason for this lack of investment is not only the dominance of cars and the city planning decisions that have privileged them, but the nature of modern governance itself, which struggles to commit itself to investments when it cannot be certain of their outcomes. Modern forms of “gotcha” media and inept forms of public communication have sapped the confidence out of governments to have a broad vision and ambitious ideas. This creates a form of paralysis when it comes to the big things cities and regions need.
To dive into a bit of economic philosophy, train lines are a Keynesian-Hayekian hybrid. They are essential government investments needed to stimulate activity, but the outcomes of this activity are impossible to predict. Governments simply do not have this kind of knowledge. This knowledge lies with individuals, yet it can only be understood by them once train lines are actually built.
This is tricky to navigate for modern nervous governments who need to sell what they do. So they invest in “business cases” that attempt to predict outcomes on things that cannot be predicted, while adding costs, time delays, doubt, and confusion to rail projects. However, the role of government is to provide the canvass for people to create and flourish, not decide what should be created.
The example I like to use was the extension of the Glen Waverley Line from Darling beginning in 1929 (and only taking a year to complete – impossible these days). There was no way governments at the time could have predicted the thriving hub Glen Waverley is today – there was no business case that would have even made the attempt. Indeed, if they were told in 1929 that the suburb would become Melbourne’s third Chinatown they most likely would have been aghast given the values of the era. Yet in 2023 this is an extraordinarily positive and well-valued asset to the city. And one that would not exist without the train line extension.
In denouncing all governments for this attitude I am being a little unfair to the current Victorian government, which I believe is making a decent attempt to rectify the 8 decades of neglect of previous governments (despite them pausing the airport rail link this week). The Suburban Rail Loop is a project of real vision, one that recognises several of the major problems with Melbourne’s rail network - the inability to travel across suburbs, the public transport holes that three of the city’s universities are in – preventing the access to, and the distribution of, ideas – and the CBD-centric rail network’s inability to foster the development of decentralised opportunity in the city.
I would add to this forging new ways to live. This is something governments probably cannot sell well, as it may seem like too vague a concept. But on an individual level, a kid in Broadmeadows (one of the city’s poorest suburbs) having direct and cheap access to universities, jobs, and social groups in the city’s wealthier and better serviced eastern suburbs presents an explosion of options for them that they currently don’t have.
Once you start to envisage how millions of these individual opportunity explosions can intersect and cross-pollinate in ways previous unavailable you can start to see the value of new train lines. And how these investments pay for themselves in ways that cannot be forecasted, but will become apparent when the lines are operational.
Beyond the connections they build, public transport has sociability at its core. There is an egalitarian ethos to public transport – how as a passenger you are part of the ecosystem of a city, and how in riding a train, tram or bus, you are not placing yourself above your fellow city residents. I think part of the problem with a lack of rail investment is that decision-makers feel themselves too good to catch public transport, so don’t understand its importance. As someone who spends a lot of time outside my home city, I firmly believe that the only real way to truly understand new cities or regions is via their public transport.
By contrast, cars symbolise the atomisation of society – little aggravation capsules we travel around in secluded from others. What cars have done to city planning is well-known, but I suspect they have had a negative affect on our relations with each other as well – a 20th Century step along the path to our current 21st Century emotional insecurity and social dislocation that social media has produced.
Being in Sweden most of the rest of the year I will enjoy getting around on its excellent train network – and I’m planning a train trip up to the Arctic Circle, which should be extraordinary. I’ll also spend some time in Stockholm with its glorious Tunnelbana (and some truly stunning stations). Given that Stockholm is situated on an archipelago, the Tunnelbana’s complexity should embarrass governments and engineers in Melbourne who struggle to built on such a flat and virtually waterless parcel of land.
This Week’s Reading
Indigenous Voice: Getting Ready To Explain To The World If Australia Votes “No”
Hugh Piper - The Interpreter
While the exact nature and extent of international reaction to the referendum remains to be seen, we can be certain that the world will take notice based on similar instances of single issue “moments” in Australian politics. The apology to the Stolen Generations made news in many countries and was viewed in a positive light. Similarly, the success of the plebiscite on same sex marriage (although not a formal referendum) was noticed internationally and Australia enjoyed a reputational dividend after the “Yes” vote passed by a handsome majority despite strident opposition in conservative press. The Empire State Building in New York was lit up in rainbow to mark the occasion.
With the Voice referendum, a multitude of factors might lead to a “No” vote – but that might be lost overseas, with the focus only on the outcome. It would be easily interpreted as a rebuke of Indigenous empowerment generally, rather than disagreement over the subtleties of the specific model proposed.
Fumio Kishida – Foreign Affairs
“As the only Asian country in the G-7, Japan is in a unique position to make clear to the world that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is not just a problem for Ukraine or Europe but also a threat to the security and prosperity of people everywhere. Russia's actions challenge the very foundation of an international order based on the rule of law, violating the basic principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. If Moscow succeeds in Ukraine, the repercussions will undermine peace and stability not only in Europe but also in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
We must also show that irresponsible nuclear rhetoric by Russia is unacceptable. I chose Hiroshima to host the G-7 summit because there is no better place to send an urgent message, spoken in one voice by the seven leaders: that we must do everything we can to continue the 77-year-old record of the nonuse of nuclear weapons since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To that end, I have made it a priority to focus on practical and realistic efforts to move toward a world without nuclear weapons, enshrined in the Hiroshima Action Plan. The plan calls for a shared recognition of the importance of continuing the record of nonuse of nuclear weapons; enhancing transparency; further reducing the global nuclear stockpile; securing nuclear nonproliferation and promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy on that basis; and promoting an accurate understanding of the realities of nuclear weapons use by encouraging visits to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by international leaders and others.”
Japan Can’t Pass The Buck Anymore
Jennifer Lind - New York Times
Japan has a choice to make. It could continue to pass the buck, hoping that the United States will catch it. It could end its U.S. alliance to pursue neutrality or appease China. But either option is risky for a country on the frontline. If Japanese leaders are indeed committed to resisting Chinese dominance of Asia, they must view their country as the equivalent of West Germany during the Cold War: Highly threatened, at the centre of geopolitical competition and contributing significantly to its own defence. Yet Japan’s new plans for military spending remain modest: Even after doubling its spending, Japan would still fall below the global average of 2.2 percent of G.D.P. Deterring a regional superpower such as China will likely require greater effort.
Observers often warn that a militarily stronger Japan triggers unease in a region where memories of its wartime violence persist and where an arms race is already underway. But outside of China and North Korea, many countries in the region and beyond do not fear a larger Japanese security role; security partners like India and Australia have encouraged it. Many East Asian countries view Japan favourably based on close ties in trade, technology, tourism and education; Tokyo’s leadership in regional institutions and economic development; and its Covid-related assistance. Surveys show that Japan is the major power that is most trusted among Southeast Asian countries, and Japan has increased security cooperation with Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam.
Modi in the Pacific: New Horizons For Indian Foreign Policy
Teesta Prakash & Shivangi Seth – South Asian Voices
“India has undertaken multiple projects to provide renewable energy to the Pacific islands. These projects include providing solar power to 2800 homes across fourteen Pacific Island countries, a grant worth USD $1.1 million to provide solar energy to an entire Kiribati district, and energy-efficient equipment worth USD $200,000 to Vanuatu. In his recent visit to Suva, Foreign Minister Jaishankar and Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka also launched a two-year project amounting to USD $1.3 million to install solar power systems in the official residences of Pacific heads of state. India also introduced a concessional Line of Credit of USD $150 million that Pacific islands can avail to undertake solar, renewable energy, and climate-related projects based on their requirements and priorities.
India’s solidarity with the Pacific islands on climate change goes beyond the provision of renewables. India and the Nauru government constructed a 200-meter to build resilience against sea-level rise and associated natural disasters. It also launched Climate Early Warning Systems in seven Pacific island countries in 2017. It assists with the consequences of frequent natural disasters that hit Pacific island countries, including relief and rehabilitation grants to Vanuatu, Tonga, and Fiji.
India is also walking the talk on enforcing climate friendly policies at home and that matters in how it is perceived by at risk regions. India plans to amend its national electricity policy to curb the development of new coal-fired power plants. It also co-founded the International Solar Alliance with France to promote solar energy. Multiple Pacific Island states are full members of this alliance. India has also pledged its support to the Pacific islands’ climate change negotiations at international fora, with Modi reasserting that “your interests will have the strength of our voice.”
It’s Time for the Generals to Let Go in Pakistan
Omar Waraich – Foreign Policy
“Khan was ostensibly arrested on corruption charges. In total, he says he is facing 148 cases, including allegations of “terrorism,” “sedition,” and “blasphemy.” But the motivation behind these cases has little to do with notions of transparency or accountability. This is an attempt to eliminate him from contention in this year’s general election. Leaders of Khan’s party have been arrested and, allegedly, in some cases, tortured. More have been arrested at more junior levels, and even peaceful protests led by Khan’s supporters have been crushed by the police. The military is now threatening to prosecute the suspected rioters in its own courts, in brazen violation of international law. Anyone involved in inciting or carrying out violence should be held accountable, but through fair trials in civilian courts.
By pursuing its vendetta against Khan, the military is putting its own standing at risk. His supporters aren’t found in remote rural areas. They are concentrated in Pakistan’s main towns and cities. They include members of the elite and the assertive and social media-savvy middle classes, with vast numbers of people whose relatives are serving in the military or have done before. Rarely has hostility toward the military seeped so deep into its own heartlands. There is even open talk of splits among the Army’s own high command.
The generals may not realize it now, but a permanent withdrawal from politics would be in their best interests. Their hybrid experiment didn’t just fail—it disastrously backfired. The military can only assert its will now through force, shedding support in the process. By stepping aside, much of the hostile attention would fade. They would also have space to heal internal rifts and rebuild their much-damaged public image.”
Why So Many Conservatives Feel Like Losers
Helen Lewis - The Atlantic
“Eventually, the point of the meeting became clear. This wasn’t a political conference so much as a group-therapy session. Here were people who were obviously, startlingly correct about the evils of the modern world, and yet they weren’t being listened to. There must be some mistake.
In that context, the endless, conspiratorial references to the “elite” began to make sense. The elite is not NatCon chair Christopher DeMuth, who attended Harvard before serving in the Nixon and Reagan administrations. It is not the conference’s British organizer, James Orr, a divinity professor at Cambridge University. It is not Douglas Murray or Father Marcus Walker, who said the prayer before the conference’s private dinner, though both were at Oxford University at the same time I was. It is not Danny Kruger, who told delegates that conservatives had to fight the “intelligentsia, the globalized elite, whose loyalties are to everyone and no one,” and who went to the same boarding school as Prince William. It is not Charlemagne, either, even if he was a literal emperor. The elite is students. The elite is the “woke mind virus.” The elite is a great shadowy Them composed of anyone an inch closer to the political center than the national conservatives are. The elite is whoever is stopping you from getting whatever you want without having to make any compromises.
Throughout the conference, delegates kept returning to one question: Can national conservatism succeed in Britain? The answer has to be no. Just look at Brexit, that great populist triumph now dismissed even by its proponents as an unfulfilled dream, a mere shadow of what they were promised. Whatever happens next, I confidently predict we will discover that true national conservatism has never been tried.”
Why Outspoken Women Scare Trump
Ronald Brownstein - The Atlantic
“Even before Trump became a national figure in 2016, attitudes about cultural and racial change were emerging as the central fault line between the two party coalitions. But Trump widened that divide. Research by the Tufts University political scientist Brian Schaffner and his colleagues found the belief that racism is no longer prevalent in American society to be the most powerful predictor of support for Trump in 2016. The study concluded that the second strongest predictor of Trump support was the belief that women complaining about sexism were seeking unfair advantages over men.
Those relationships between cultural attitudes and the vote persisted through 2020, Schaffner told me. Dismissal of gender discrimination didn’t predict support for Trump quite as strongly as in 2016, when he was running against Hillary Clinton. But those attitudes about gender still correlated with voting for Trump in 2020 more powerfully than any other factor except the views on race, Schaffner said.
Resistance to demands for greater gender equality remains a defining attribute of the Trump-era GOP electorate. A national poll conducted last summer by Undem’s firm found that about two-thirds of Republican voters agreed that “women are too easily offended,” nearly three-fifths said that “most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist,” slightly more than seven in 10 agreed that “these days society seems to punish men just for acting like men,” and almost seven in 10 agreed that “white men are the most attacked group in the country right now.” Most Republicans in that poll also agreed that “there is full equality for women in work, life and politics,” and most agreed that they were “more comfortable with women having traditional roles in society such as caring for children and family.” Further, a preponderant majority of Republicans in the poll expressed unfavourable views of the #MeToo movement, as they did of Black Lives Matter.”
Hannah Dreyfus – ProPublica
ProPublica have recently being doing some excellent investigative journalism into the sheer lunacy of family courts in the United States. Reunification camps are brutal attempts at brainwashing children into accepting fathers they are frightened of, and demonising their mothers for seeking to protect them. They are one of the arms of the “parental alienation” industry – ghouls who seek to service the demand for violent and abusive fathers to avoid consequences for their behaviour. The capture of family court systems by this ideology and the industry that feeds off it is one of our great collective failings.
The welfare of children should be a first order issue for the state, but justice systems have allowed themselves to be captured by ideas and economic incentives that actively revictimise and do further harm to children.
“In February, Maase advised the court to continue prohibiting the boys from seeing their mother until Hollie “fully acknowledges the alienation and discontinues her negative behaviours.” The children must first “relinquish their alienating thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, feelings and behaviour” before they are allowed to see her, Maase wrote in a report to the court.”