The term commuter, though an English term, came into its own in Australia well ahead of any overseas example.I had some idea of that, but you've added to my knowledge there.
It referred to the periodical ticket holders of the 1800s writing to the Commissioner (yes, people wrote letters than, My Dearest Sir, etc) praying that as the ticket holder was a regular 'forker-outer' for the service and kept the Commissioner in his comfy office with leather chair, the least he could do was 'commute' the fare paid to a lower amount.
Which country pioneered the idea of middle class people living along existing mainline rail routes, travelling from small outlying towns to major cities for work? And never saw fit to build a dedicated metro system?
Excuse me, how did we go from "periodical ticket holder" to "people living along existing mainline rail routes"? Periodical ticket holders could live along any rail route.
Which means that you have done nothing to answer my point.
Not sure you really read the rest of my post or Peters.
I read them all right through.
I quoted the German words Stadtteil and Vorort so you would realise that the reason a lot of people in here getting their knickers in knots about whether x or y deserves a 'suburban' service is they can't even get their heads around what the word 'suburban' means.
Which you didn't really explain, beyond saying that the meaning had changed. What I would have expected might be for you to use a couple of foreign-language words to explain a difference in concept, then relate our word to one of those words. That last step you didn't do.
JoM in bullet points coz its quicker
-Australian capital cities were settled from the cores outwards
-In Europe a large city might have historically had no political or administrative connection to the villages or towns around it
-In Europe with better transport and population growth these villages and towns were agglomerated into the mass, but retained their historic sense of identity and often retained their historic 'raisons d'etre' [look that one up!] even though clearly in the orbit of a larger city
-It was therefore appropriate, in Europe at any rate, to separate out semantically the concept of a portion of a city, from the concept of a town or village in the broader orbit of that city.
-Australia agglomerated such villages and towns into larger cities too (although I'm sure there were fewer to start with). However, as many of these villages and towns lacked any separate identity, they were easily incorporated into the identity of the larger city.
Ask a person from Bonn whether they live in Cologne. They will answer no, although the 2 share an airport.
-In Victoria, for example, Geelong has managed to maintain a separate identity (though it shares an airport) but Werribee, Melton and Sunbury have not.
-places like Ringwood, Dandenong and Frankston have definitely not retained their own identities separate from Melbourne.
We use this word 'suburban' in a sense quite different from a lot of the world. We use it where we could use the word 'urban'.What does this have to do with trains?
-clearly an urban journey is a journey the passenger expects to be relatively cheap, little sense of preparation required, comfort is not the biggest deal. It is not unexpected that people should make these journeys, this is the raison d'etre of the place - people doing the work that the city exists for.
-a suburban journey would be one from an outlying town or village with its own raison d'etre (and therefore, the passenger is making a journey away from their town and effectively to do the work of some other town). The passenger is clearly someone who DOES expect to have to fit, somewhat, within the parameters of the service provider. They do expect comfort, they do expect to have to pay for the priviledge. They expect the service to be only there at the times most people travel, eg AM and PM peaks.
Now definition 1 actually sounds like what we call suburban in Australia, and definition 2 sounds like what we call interurban.
That's fine, but then on this board I have read all sorts of stuff about what sort of service should be provided, and people picking and choosing like a buffet which bits of the service they reckon the government should provide, no regard to the cost it might have.
And people who have no regard for what sort of message these calls have to the community, who are poorly educated, and who go and build houses in response to these ill-thought out calls.
I made this point about Pakenham and Hurstbridge. To illustrate. As far as I'm concerned, they can keep their existing services.But its a bit rich when people go saying that Hurstbridge should get double track, or we need a third track to Dandenong to meet the needs of Pakenham people
, when IMNSHO people shouldn't be build McMansions out at Pakenham till I can see some evidence that Melbourne is already full.