tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18909424.post3758979655213375040..comments2024-03-24T23:01:11.766+11:00Comments on Melbourne on Transit: Peter Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13413976934040474125noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18909424.post-71529782189346680312010-06-15T20:05:19.758+10:002010-06-15T20:05:19.758+10:00PP I'm not sure why you do these exercises, ex...PP I'm not sure why you do these exercises, exonerate the political establishment and ignore obvious implications from what's happened.<br /><br />Who approved the extension of suburban trains and urban sprawl to Pakenham? It only had electrification by historical accident (a failed briquette haulage scheme) and was not suitable for the level of service that would need to be provided.<br /><br />If the train kilometres increased, it means they borrowed/stole them from existing commuters on existing services, it's no wonder they fell as a proportion of total ridership. And now people can't get on at Murrumbeena because of unsustainable services at Pakenham.<br /><br />And why no comment on how reductions in services made the service overall unappealing?<br /><br />I know you mean well but I always feel I'm reading the Jim Betts version on your blog.Riccardonoreply@blogger.com