I guess this is an example that shows that public transport is seen to increase the value of the communities it serves. Commercially, the developer must think that it makes financial sense to them to provide such a transport solution. Perhaps some people wouldnt want to live there if there was no PT option available to them.
IMO, this should be allowed to happen and perhaps encouraged - the users of the service are paying for it.
There won't be developer provided transport after sufficient people have bought houses/land it will then it will be left to the government when the developer moves to 'greener pastures' in his Merc.
This whole concept of developers being allowed to do and get away with almost anything not only causes lack of public transport but also:
- Flash flooding
- Clogged streets
- Electricity problems
- Shortage of capacity on suburban trains
- Parking problems
- Lack of parkland
Broadly speaking all infrastructure in suburban Melbourne is working beyond the red line. Developers are permitted to cover the normal suburban house block fence to fence with, say, 6 units housing perhaps 18 people and 6 cars rather than 1 house and 3 people. No one improves the area drainage, water supply, electricity supply all of which are simply connected to the existing 1950s infrastructure and we wonder why it is grossly overloaded. The recent electricity blackouts in Melbourne are but one example of this.
We pay enormous amounts to electrickery companies for 'poles and wires' and what do we get:
- No real maintenance
- No capital improvements
- Rotten poles at crazy angles propped up with steel piling hammered into the ground if we are lucky
Our payments are turned into bonuses for those who can avoid to the greatest degree that for which the payments are intended or simply company profits.