It's a project that creates benefits for Melbourne's western suburbs and the state as a whole. But the inner-city elite don't like it and recent experience suggests their opinion holds sway.
The Coalition, Labor, and the Greens are making substantial commitments to projects that not only lack proper business cases, but are not even on the Infrastructure Australia priority list at all.
The 2016 articulation of an urban agenda assumes building more highways, railways and trams will produce better, more productive cities that somehow give everyone a job.
There are many important reasons why transport planners and policymakers should encourage and support this delay in car dependence.
Using elements of game play, we can create incentives for people to change how and when they make various transport choices in ways that enable the whole system to work better.
Early residents in new communities are known as 'pioneers' – they arrive before many services are in place. A five-year study points to the many benefits of putting in good services early on.
Much of the infrastructure Australia needs will be funded by "value capture" – raising tax revenue by boosting land values. Some have decried it as a tax hike in all but name, but it isn't really.
The budget paints a picture of higher debt, little relief for growing cities crying out for infrastructure investment, and no detail of how City Deals might work to fix this.
On reform, the 2016-17 budget is a holding one, with tinkering on the sides.
With a fast-growing population, London needs a mayor with a clear vision for public transport. Will it get one?
With the failures of past planning now apparent, the unruly threat of a damaged and depleting planet is ushering us toward a fourth era of urban restructuring. What might City v4.0 look like?
Sydney, as a whole, is lurching toward an urban structure where its transportation problems are impossible to solve. The only alternative is to create new centres of employment.
If planning decisions properly considered the value of trees in a city, we could have a modern transport system and tree-lined views to enhance the journey.
How did urban public transport in America, like much of our infrastructure, get to be in such bad shape? Will millennials help turn it around?
Elevated rail to remove level crossings, done properly, has many benefits – and the alternatives are more disruptive and costly. But announcing projects with little consultation is asking for trouble.
Infrastructure Australia's latest report is substantial but, critically, it fails to incorporate the transport thinking needed to develop more compact cities that work better for everyone.
On average, people won't accept a commuting time of more than an hour. As cities grow ever bigger, new road projects can't achieve this, yet policymakers still rely on modelling that defies evidence.
Navigating a major metropolis with a disability is tough, but the Paralympics give us the chance to make it work.
Building more rail shouldn't be reliant on the public purse.
Instead of trying to maintain our usual routines in the face of huge disruptions, we should use them as a welcome opportunity to mix things up.