This adds weight to what you say:

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/victoria-defends-poor-crossing-removal-bcr?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=top-stories-this-week-on-railpage https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/victoria-defends-poor-crossing-removal-bcr?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=top-stories-this-week-on-railpage

It actually horrifies me to think that these grade-separation, viaduct etc works are coming out of the rail budget. Is that the case?

One thing they could be looking at is whether the number of road crossings can be consolidated into fewer at greater intervals. I've always understood that a level crossing is legally a right-of-way for a road to cross a railway, not the other way around. I suspect railways have the legal power to close a level crossing and thus cut the road, but I imagine their political masters might not very much like to allow this!

The whole problem is not down to trains but idiots in road vehicles and on foot who will not conform to any safety standards. Taking away some driving licences for life might go some way towards addressing that.

Tony P
---InTramsDownUnder@..., <arg@...> wrote : It is spending that should be charged to the road budget but whether it’s an “investment” (implying there’s a return on the expenditure) is open to question. Eliminating an LC where volume related congestion has slowed road traffic to a crawl won’t make the traffic flow any faster, and only transfer the ire of the frustrated motorist to some other not-a-car object perceived as the problem - tram, bus, bicycle, etc.

Anyone gormless enough to drive a single occupant vehicle in traffic congested by other single occupant vehicles when there’s a PT alternative hasn’t the wits to realise that they are the problem, and more road capacity generates more of the problem, not a solution.

Tony G