Dick Adams wrote:

Which Australian cities do you think have great infrastructure?

All of the Australian cities have reasonably good infrastructures.
The problem that is indigious to all countries the English
colonized is that the blood *******s left it with poor
infrastructures. (I wrote English so as not to include the
Irish, the Scots, the Welsh, the Manx, etc.)


I am confused. If they have reasonably good infrastructure (which is a
matter of opinion) how is it they are affected by the nature of the colonial
British who left them with poor infrastructure? Are you remarking that in
the 110 years of independence the natives have compensated for their
inadequate heritage?

I love Australia and wish to retire there. But look at the roads
that that span the continent. I drove the Nullarbor. It was a
two lane black top road for 1668 km (1036 miles), and you can't
drive after unless you want to risk totaling your car by hitting
a roo.


Well that't the nature of the beast, very long distances to travel and low
population densities except for right in the big cities. There are many
thousands of km of such roads and not much tax base to build or maintain
them. What price 3000km of roo fence? More important, because it affects
many more people, look at the roads in Sydney. Traffic jams day and night
every day. The city chokes on cars.

The rail system in New South Wales is excellent and rivals any
inter-city system I seen.

It's a pity the inter state system isn't used more but you aren't going to
get much more patronage while travel time is many times that of flying and
not much money saved and while people need their cars in their destination
city they aren't going by rail (except for one or two trains where you can
take your car). The intra-city rail systems vary between very ordinary and
inadequate.

D