australia´s current population overpassed the 20 million inhabitants last year, and according to the canberra population clock this are the numbers for today

20,114,601

you can see it at this page

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument

now, my dream population australia would be like this

NEW SOUTH WALES

SYDNEY 6.300.000

NEWCASTLE 1.200.000

WOLLONGONG 600.000

ORANGE 250.000

REST OF THE STATE 400.000

VICTORIA

MELBOURNE 5.700.000

BALLARAT 300.000

BENDIGO 250.000

GEELONG 700.000

REST OF THE STATE 300.000

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

ADELAIDE 2.000.000

GLENELEG 200.000

REST OF THE STATE 100.000

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

PERTH 3.100.000

BUNBURY 500.000

ALBANY 200.000

REST OF THE STATE 200.000

NORTHERN TERRITORRY

DARWIN 200.000

ALICE SPRINGS 350.000

REST OF THE STATE 50.000

QUEENSLAND

BRISBANE 3.300.000

GOLD COAST 1.200.000

SUNSHINE COAST 250.000

CAIRNS 150.00

TOWNSVILLE 240.000

TOOWOOMBA 250.000

REST OF THE STATE 200.000

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORRY

CANBERRA 500.000

TASMANIA

HOBART 500.000

LAUNCESTON 300.000

REST OF THE STATE 100.000

in other words, australia would have 29.840.000 inhabitants, it´d be cool if they do it in the next couple of years, connecting goald coast - newcastle - sydney with a high velocity train

to see the population of australia for this year enter this page

http://www.world-gazetteer.com/c/c_au.htm

do you guys think this is posible? maybe you could accept 1 million inmigrants from latin america, then 2 million inhabitants from the u.s.a., 3 millions from europe, 1.5 millions from othe countries and 2.5 million australian natural born babies

could it be posible? i would love to see it happen :)

29 million?

Boring.

BTW this sounds like another Evil Plan thread in-the-making. :D

in other words, australia would have 29.840.000 inhabitants, it´d be cool if they do it in the next couple of years,
That means you'd have to have basically 9 million immigrants in the next couple of years.

Won't happen. Even the US has never had that many immigrants in such a short time. Aus would NEVER be able to build enough housing for them all so soon, nor could the economy provide enough jobs for them so soon. You'd have a million people living on the streets, in their cars or building their own shanties in desperation, and most of them would be jobless, too.

Spread that out over 10-20 years and maybe it's more realistic.

I think he is alluding to his dream population Bond both in regards to population and doing it quick.

That ABS pop clock jumped about 4,000 in one day just yesterday or the day before because they adjusted it for the recently published end of Dec 31 stats. Do the math and now the average daily growth is 680 a day.

What we need is a strong West to balance out the eastcentric nation of ours. 4 million perth, 1 million Geraldton, 1 million Albany, and make Karratha into something that rivals the Gold Coast :)

Oh and they've got to stop making wine down near the Margaret River. God damn that be some bad tasting stuff.

You're forgetting to look at the challenges of maintaining high population growth without the environment and society in general going to shit. Our current agricultural lands are already heavily degraded due to innapropriate practices and we need to establish solutions before we even think about adding another 9 million people to our country.

australia´s current population overpassed the 20 million inhabitants last year, and according to the canberra population clock this are the numbers for today
20,114,601


It's already increased to 20,115,137 now. Very quick! LOL

What we need is a strong West to balance out the eastcentric nation of ours. 4 million perth, 1 million Geraldton, 1 million Albany, and make Karratha into something that rivals the Gold Coast :)

Oh and they've got to stop making wine down near the Margaret River. God damn that be some bad tasting stuff.


You are kidding about Margaret River wines aint you? It is mostly reguarded as being of very high quality.

@ everywhen - be daring man - make one of the minor cities larger than the capitals, like make Launceston bigger than Hobart (there's only 80K difference now and there's more industry in the state's north than in Hobart which is a services based economy)

I say for my preferences in the future (25 yrs away) :

Sydney 4.5m
Blue Mountains 200K
Wollongong 400K
Gosford 300K
Newcastle - Maitland 1m
Coffs Harbour 100K
Tweed Heads 200K
Shoalhaven 250K
Dubbo 100K
Wagga Wagga 200K
Albury 300K
Queanbeyan 150K

(NSW 8m TOTAL)


Canberra 1m


Melbourne 4m
Mornington 1m
Geelong 1m
Traralgon 200K
Bendigo 500K
Ballarat 400K
Shepparton 100K
Wodonga 100K
Mildura 100K

(VIC 8m TOTAL)


Launceston 1.2m
Hobart 300K
Burnie 100K
Devonport 400K

(TAS 2m total)


Adelaide 2m
Mt Gambier 100K
Port Augusta 100K

(SA 2.5 m TOTAL)

Perth 3m
Bunbury 250K
Karratha 100K
Broome 300K

(WA 4m TOTAL)

Darwin 300K
Palmerston 600K
Alice Springs 200K

(NT 1.5m TOTAL)


Brisbane 2m
Ipswich 500K
Springfield 300K
Gold Coast 1m
Sunshine Coast 500K
Toowoomba 200K
Bundaberg 100K
Rockhampton 150K
Gladstone 300K
Mackay 200K
Townsville 1m
Cairns 500K

(QLD 7m TOTAL)


Thats 34 million (an extra 14 mill in Qtr of a century and more evenly spread)

^^ :nuts: :poke:

Cool, I used to do this when I was younger, but a few things with both everywhen and Jimmy James' figures- Glenelg is part of Adelaide, and with the population projections you have both posted, so would Mornington be part of Melbourne (already is if you ask me...), Geelong part of Melbourne, Wollongong, Gosford, Blue Mountains, Newcastle all part of Sydney, Palmerston or Darwin would be part of the other (again already is), Ipswich and Springfield part of Brisbane (already is...) and Gold Coast also part of Brisbane.

But to enter into the spirit of the discussion, I would like to see Dubbo and Karratha become far bigger, both around 150 000 people, and logically Launceston should be bigger than Hobart. Townsville should at least triple in population (to say 450 000) so it gets on ALL the maps. Newcastle, Albury/Wodonga, Gladstone, Wagga, Mildura, Bunbury should also double in population at least.

If there were a way to measure it, urban centres of our largest cities should also grow to equal the size of their currently larger "mother city"- Parramatta for Sydney, Dandenong, Narre Warren, Cranbourne or Ringwood for Melbourne, Elizabeth/ Salisbury or Noarlunga for Adelaide, Joondalup or Kwinana for Perth, Ipswich, Logan or Caboolture for Brisbane and Charlestown or Maitland for Newcastle.

This all over a 20 year period I'd say.

Parraman - I have to concede most of those points, and for the most part I was just fucking around , but I don't think you can count Newcastle as part of Sydney, it has it's own metro area and is more than an hour away. I think Geelong should be considered part of Melbourne but I gotta tell you people here don't consider themselves part of the Metro despite the fact that we're probably closer to the CBD (At least in Northern Geelong - where I am) than a lot of Melbourne is! Talk to people here though and say your going to the city and they assume they'll see you on Malop not Bourke! Ipswich always had a bit of the same mentality as well despite the fact that there is no Border between it and Brisbane anymore!

I agree with you that we need some suburban CBDs, Sydney has them going on and even Canberra has some minor ones but a lot of other cities would benefit by halting suburban low density growth and renovating their suburban centres.

As you know I lived there for 9 months so I am a champion of all things Launceston and would love to see at least one city in this country overtake it's capital! Also Wagga would be the ultimate inland city that I would love to see expanded (it already has 17 suburbs beleive it or not - place names like Turvey Park, Kooringal, Lake Albert, Tolland, San Salvador) but at 70K it has some growing to do (but has growl around 20K in as many years, when I lived there as a kid the population was 52K! and that was less than 20 years ago

wow everyones dream australia! well most r shit, but a more realistic one

syd, bris and melb should all top out 5 mil easy with all the surrounders joinin.

perth and adel are adeqaute for 2 to 2.5 mil and nce again all the surrounders join.

state populations.

NSW - 8 million
VIC - 8 million
QLD - 10 million
TAS - 2 million
ACT - 500,000
WA - 4 million
SA - 2.5 million
NT - 1 million
= 36,000,000 - not achieveable till 2060 or so.

Most of everyone's projections are similar to what Canada is right now,

provincial breakdown:

can't find english version atm

Ontario 12,243,000
Québec 7,492,000
Colombie-Britannique 4,181,000
Alberta 3,168,000
Manitoba 1,152.000
Saskatchewan 1,006,000
Nouvelle-Écosse 946,000
Nouveau-Brunswick 757,000
Terre-Neuve 529,500
Île du Prince Édouard 140,000
Territoires du N-O 42,000
Nunavut 30,000
Yukon 30,000

Canada Total: 31,716,500

Ontario + Québec = l'Australie! :eek:

New South Wales + Victoria + South Australia = ~Ontario
Victoria + Western Australia = ~Québec
British Columbia + Nova Scotia = ~Victoria
Manitoba + Saskatchewan + Nova Scotia + New Brunswick = ~Queensland
Prince Edward Island + Northern Territories + Nunavut + Yukon = Northern Territory.

perhaps a co-incidence that the majority of what people "want" is similar to what Canada is right now?

perhaps a co-incidence that the majority of what people "want" is similar to what Canada is right now?
Ah, so you Aussies really *are* Canada wanna-be's. Well let's just make sure the Canucks don't hear about this, you'll never hear the end of it. ;) :D

Canada Wannabe's...........

If Australia wants to emmulate Canada,all they have to do is move their entire population down to the Australian antarctic territory and find 10 million other suckers to move down there with them.

Then they should start building a bunch of cities filled with bland 80's looking scrapers.


:D:D:D

^^ but canada doesnt have penguins.

^^ the australian colonists will need a source of food upon arrival.

Antarctica doesn't have mooses but you don't hear them complaining.

well jimmy james, wouldn´t be a bad idea seeing sydney with 6.3 million inhabitants, maybe it could be compared with big cities as toronto, but the thing is that i really was thinking bout matching aussie population with canada´s one, it´s just that i think if you had the amount of people living in canada in down under you could have megapolis, i mean, just imagine a huge road connecting the gold coast - brisbane - townsville - newcastle - sydney - wollongong - melbourne - geelong - adelaide, you could have a heavy populated area of about 20 million inhabitans, like in the states, with boston,philadelphia, new york and the sorrounding cities, which make a heavy population of 40 million inhabitants, too bad your pop. growth is of only 300 k per year, anyways, you could create more jobs, and inject 10 more million inhabitants there, but obviously not in a couple of years, but lets say in 10 years

and i was thinking of WA having 5 million inhabitans, cause aussie wester coast is so inhabitated, maybe, perth with 3.3 and bunbury 1 million, albany 500 k, and the rest of the state 400k

and i was thinking of WA having 5 million inhabitans, cause aussie wester coast is so inhabitated, maybe, perth with 3.3 and bunbury 1 million, albany 500 k, and the rest of the state 400k

The land on the west coast wouldn't be suitable for such a population with the land generally being poor quality.

mooses

Meese.

Actually, the plural of moose is . . . moose.

So there!

I have shot many a deer(no moose though)so I actually did know that............I just like saying my wordage funny.:D

i would also like to see new zealand having 2.5 more million inhabitants there, halve of them in auckland, and the rest in south island, specially christchurch

NZer's New Zealand

Te Kauwhata 4.5million

Auckland 1.5 million

Twizel(new capital) 500,000.

The land on the west coast wouldn't be suitable for such a population with the land generally being poor quality.


Actually, that is not true for a big portion of the land. The SW has a very high rainfall. Albany was the first settlement and it could easily accomodate a million people. In the extreme NW the rainfall is quite high too and there is Lake Argyle, all fresh water with 55 times the volume of Sydney harbour.

Also, WA accounts for 25% of the total Australia wheat crop this year. I am not blind to the bad land management and salt problems but if managed well and if the water infrastructure is there, WA can support a lot more people than 2 million.

i honestly dont know anything about WA. ive never been there, and its very Isolated. What abour Broome? is it very large.. cuz its always on maps and so on

The secret is out about Broome being a great place to vacation. Virgin Airlines discovered they were on a good thing when they started a service from the east coast at weekends.In time it will be another 'gateway' to Australia from some of the Asian Airlines. :)

Broome has very seasonal population due to tourism. I think it's substantive population is getting close to 20k and it is growing quite quick now. I think it can get to +30k with high tourist season. Broome is in the Kimberley region but Kununurra is deep in the Kimberley. That's where the country gets spectacular with gorges, lots of water and very very green during the wet season. Kununurra is not far from the NT border and is very close to Lake Argyle.

The secret is out about Broome being a great place to vacation. Virgin Airlines discovered they were on a good thing when they started a service from the east coast at weekends.In time it will be another 'gateway' to Australia from some of the Asian Airlines. :)

Yeah Broome is progressing. They are currently upgrading the runway to cater for 747's. Curerntly traffic from Europe via Singapore have to fly to Alice Springs and then people can transit to Broome from there. When the runway upgrade is complete Broome will really boom.

Broome is really just a place to relax and chillout. It is surrounded by flat country but the beach (Cable beach) is a beauty. It's very tropical weather and the sunsets are truly unbelievable. The wate is very warm too. Also great fishing. Kununurra is very the spectacular country side is however.

As you know I lived there for 9 months so I am a champion of all things Launceston and would love to see at least one city in this country overtake it's capital!

Having lived in Launceston most of my life, and Hobart for the last 2 years, I think that would be amusing :) But I don't think it has much of a chance of happening. A couple of (possible) things I would like to see:

1a) Hobart to grow until there is continuous suburban sprawl to the surrounding towns - eg. New Norfolk, Sorell, Huonville. This would make the "Greater Hobart" area increase significantly.

1b) Also, sort of along the same lines, it would be good to see the South Arm/Tasman Peninsula develop a lot. If you don't know Hobart well, take a look at a map, and look at all the waterfront coastline just to the south and east. Unfortunately some people are trying to stop this (http://www.ralphsbayvillage.com.au/ and http://www.saveralphsbay.org) :(

2) Burnie and Devonport merge (as well as the towns in the area, Latrobe, Ulverstone, Penguin, Forth, and Somerset) into a single super-city. As it is now, they would have a combined population of about 60000. (25k Devonport + 20k Burnie + 10k Ulverstone + others) I think it would really unify the north-west coast, as they seem to get left out at the moment due to not having a city bigger than 25000.

Women will have alot of laying to do then...

^^ looks like there has been a fair bit of that going on, we've increased by nearly 3/4 of a million people since this thread started.

we are now at 20,802,126


The land on the west coast wouldn't be suitable for such a population with the land generally being poor quality.

isn't the north west coast shaping up for some major expansion with all the new ord river scheme releases? looks to me like the nw could support a massive population increase. you could probably support a few million up that way, if they could adapt to the climate that is.

WOW Lance, you must have been rumaging down in the vaults to find this thread.

Lets home it doesn't descend into a Canada v Australia debarcle, the thread starter has been banned since he started this one.

yeah, accidently clicked on LAST page instead of first page and saw this and a few other interesting ones.

i honestly dont know anything about WA. ive never been there, and its very Isolated. What abour Broome? is it very large.. cuz its always on maps and so on

stupid logic, alice springs is often on national weather maps too.

broome is about 10,000 people.

What we need is a strong West to balance out the eastcentric nation of ours. 4 million perth, 1 million Geraldton, 1 million Albany, and make Karratha into something that rivals the Gold Coast :)

Oh and they've got to stop making wine down near the Margaret River. God damn that be some bad tasting stuff.

So with no wine and no water, what are all you 6 million + sandgropers going to drink ?

What we need is a strong West to balance out the eastcentric nation of ours. 4 million perth, 1 million Geraldton, 1 million Albany, and make Karratha into something that rivals the Gold Coast :)

Oh and they've got to stop making wine down near the Margaret River. God damn that be some bad tasting stuff.

I have always thought that WA should be more focused on building its population up as quick as possibe. A couple of milloin odd in that massive area is just plain wrong.

Our environment is already screwed, whats the point in bringing more people into the world and degrading it further?

Why cant we try and have a sustainable population and evironment? One that works smarter for all of us and makes us all richer, healthier.

Quality over quantity is a much better way to go, ethically and morally.

Look at the Swiss fourth richest people in the world per capita, but their population is only approx 8 million. Great education, good health system, good looking people, environmentally conscious. Id rather model our society on something like this than just increasing our population because it feels good.

Think.

So with no wine and no water, what are all you 6 million + sandgropers going to drink ?


water piped from up north...enedless supplies up there. with 6 million+ they would have to do that.

Because Governments increase taxes, laws, fines,... well...everything at a slow incremental rate year after year you would have to say quality of life has been moving backwards for some years.......I don't mean plasma TV's ,Ipods etc...just the basic life support stuff..like water !!! Earlier forward thinkers built infrastructure for the future (now passed)........now after years of neglect we suddenly are up the creek without a paddle...whats the use if there is no water to paddle?

Oh and they've got to stop making wine down near the Margaret River. God damn that be some bad tasting stuff.

Some of Australias best wines come from Margaret River. It is known for its great Chardonnay, Cabernet, Cabernet Merlot blends, Semillon Sauvignon Blanc blends and Shiraz. This means it has the broadest range of top performing varieties wheras other regions are known for maybe one or two great performers. Output to award ratio it is Australias most awarded wine region by far. The Leeuwin Estate Art Series Chardonnay is regarded as Australias best Chardy.

^^ Margaret River wines are sublime. No further discussion.:cheers:

WA has to look at booming their regional cities to national significance. Good to see these cities have over half a million people each. Distances are favourable for high-speed rail infrastructure well into the future...
Geraldton-Perth ~ 400km
Perth-Albany ~ 400km
Perth-Kalgoorlie ~ 600km
Esperance-Kalgoorlie ~ 400km
Geraldton-Carnarvon ~ 500km
Broome-Port Hedland (renamed Portland) ~ 600km
Portland to Karratha ~ 300km

renamed Portland?...no. Plus that would never happen!
Dont go renaming the place i grew up in! lol.

Why dont we just rename Brisbane Bane.

Then theres Mourne, Sy and Alaide...wOot!

Quality over quantity is a much better way to go, ethically and morally.

Mate, that's un-Australian. You know that. :)

Burnie 100K
Devonport 400K
I'm just trying to imagine half a million bogans in one small area...
:lol:

Great education, good health system, good looking people, environmentally conscious.

Good looking people? What's that suppose to mean?

On sunrise today they were talking about how would Australia cope with 30 million people, but i just watched the whole thing turn into the topic of single mums working or not working...im struggling to remember how the topic turned... Anyone see that? what a load of shit they talked.

Yes I saw that, it was apart of the sunrise's all stars. They talk about all different daily topics, not just one topic. :nuts:

This drought is really starting to hurt Australia, so another 10m people could be a nightmare for Australia. But know one can predict the future.

Only northern Australian and in particular the north west can still cope with population increase in our current climate. Most other places are over populated if our weather stays this way long term.

Only northern Australian and in particular the north west can still cope with population increase in our current climate. Most other places are over populated if our weather stays this way long term.

Thats BS there are plenty of places with a lot more people and lower rainfall... has everyone really been so brainwashed by the politicians because of their failure to build adequate infrastructure??? Yes there is a draught, but no it is not that severe, there is still plenty of water to sustain an even larger population in our current heavily populated areas. It is just that most of our water infrastructure was:

A) Built a long time ago (20+ years)
B) Was built in a period of unusually high rainfall acroos the southern and Eastern parts of Australia, the rain patterns now are returning to more what they were before WW2.

*EDIT*

ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon/home/ncc/www/rainfall/totals/12month/colour/latest.hres.gif

See for yourself, rainfall over Australia for the last 12 months. (makes you wonder how on earth SEQ and Syd are having any water problems at all!! - but even for the other major capitals its not that low when you compare it to large cities in the US in the south West of the country)

^^SEQ major Dam is in the area that got between 400-600mm of rain. This is very little as you need 50mm in one day to get any sort of rise in the dam levels. We have not got that sort of rain for over 500days now. If we got 400mm in one day, the dam would be 100%

i can feel that draught up my legs right now!

the issue isn't so much about water, it's about food production (but is connected to water supply of course). we are at our limits in many eastern and southern locations and over our limits around the murray darling - our main food basket. australia may actually become a net importer of food if the current situation remains.

the north and north west has been having increased average rainfall and because of this australia's actual average rainfall is increasing and NOT decreasing, but it's dropped significantly in existing food basket areas. the ord river scheme could support millions of people considering it is many times larger than sydneys dams put together. there's loads of other rivers up that way that could be dammed giving us a huge supply of water but the environmental impact must be considered. apparently lake argyle dam is many times more rich in aminal life than it was before the ord was dammed so maybe it can be a good thing!!

rain falling on the coast isn't falling anywhere near as much in the catchments which are 50 to 100km inland from the coast in most capital cities.

^^SEQ major Dam is in the area that got between 400-600mm of rain. This is very little as you need 50mm in one day to get any sort of rise in the dam levels. We have not got that sort of rain for over 500days now. If we got 400mm in one day, the dam would be 100%

Then they should build a new one closer to the coast!

Also why aren't you capturing and recycling storm water? There is clearly enough rain falling in the urbanised SEQ areas, same could be said for Sydney. A lot of the newer areas (last 30+) years in Adelaide do this already, and have a man-made aquifer system underground. In the long run it would be much cheaper then desal, though it would take more effort in setting up the sytem, Desal is a cop-out throw money at the problem quick-fix.

^^We can't build closer to the Coast as there isn't the right topography. It would be the construction holding up the water and not the ground. Try building a dam on coastal flats with a couple of pointy mountians every now and then!!!

I mentioned something about stormwater before and we are strarting to do this for the Botanic Gardens and oth parks and green space throughout Brisbane. There is apparently a big problem with cleaning out the very poisonous metals such as arsenic etc.

We will be recycling water, we have a desal plant underconstruction and there is a water grid of pipelines going in so that the SEQLD population will all have the same percentage of water reserves. Desalination in my opinion is the only water source that will get you through any drought no matter the length of it as the Ocean will never run dry.

Brisbane 2m
Ipswich 500K
Springfield 300K
Gold Coast 1m
Sunshine Coast 500K
Toowoomba 200K
Bundaberg 100K
Rockhampton 150K
Gladstone 300K
Mackay 200K
Townsville 1m
Cairns 500K

(QLD 7m TOTAL)




I call shananigans. You want Gladstone, a industrial town with ~30 000 people to be bigger then Rockhampton, Mackay and Toowoomba. Sorry not going to happen in 25 years. You want 11000 people moving into Gladstone a year. HA!

You can expect Brisbane to have more than 2m too, seeign as Perth is expected to topple that amount.

NZer's New Zealand

Te Kauwhata 4.5million

Auckland 1.5 million

Twizel(new capital) 500,000.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'd expect that the next few decades will see Gold Coast like population growth all along QLD's coast. Places like Mackay and Wide Bay (Bundaberg/Hervey Bay/Maryborough) are primed to explode imo.

Thats BS there are plenty of places with a lot more people and lower rainfall... has everyone really been so brainwashed by the politicians because of their failure to build adequate infrastructure??? Yes there is a draught, but no it is not that severe, there is still plenty of water to sustain an even larger population in our current heavily populated areas. It is just that most of our water infrastructure was:

A) Built a long time ago (20+ years)
B) Was built in a period of unusually high rainfall acroos the southern and Eastern parts of Australia, the rain patterns now are returning to more what they were before WW2.

*EDIT*

ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon/home/ncc/www/rainfall/totals/12month/colour/latest.hres.gif

See for yourself, rainfall over Australia for the last 12 months. (makes you wonder how on earth SEQ and Syd are having any water problems at all!! - but even for the other major capitals its not that low when you compare it to large cities in the US in the south West of the country)

There's nothing wildly unusual about this map, except that it shows a deficit of rainfall along the SE coast: and the rainfall from Port Headland across to Normanton looks pretty good.

As for rainfall patterns in SE Australia, well we all know we have long term cycles of drought ... many of the most significant water storages in SE Australia were built before WWII (e.g.: Hume, Mulawa, Eildon, Wyangala, Burrunjuck etc.) There was an on-going program, which included enlargening some of these, which extended over half a century ... now if they were put in the wrong place, where should they have been put?

Look, I know you hail from Adelaide, and you think everything is hunky-dory, but you'd have never built a pipeline from the Murray in the first place if you didn't need it ... I'm not sure how much of your water it contributes, but just let's say no Murray water has ever been diverted south of the Great Divide in Victoria ... and, indeed the Snowy sends water in the opposite direction in NSW.

If you think we need new infrastructure, perhaps you should indicate what you have in mind and where it should be built.

Don't kid yourselves that the Kimberlies can be turned into millions of hectares of agricultural land ... it's mainly residual soils on sandstone plateaus up there, with highly erratic rainfall at the best of times, leaving aside the issue of native title.

Whatever happened to the Humpty Doo Rice project? And the Ord River Scheme has hardly been an outstanding success.

Get some stream runoff data! Then you'll know what you're talking about.

Well, I thought I would get some streamflow data myself, but unlike the old days, when governments published state year-books, it proved more difficult that expected.

Here's what I did come up with ...

(1) largest capacity dams in each state ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/ooompaloompa123/Misc/damcapacities.jpg

(2) some old stats on streamflow from an Atlas. Note that the area of the circle represents the volume of water, not the diameter of the circle, and the colours on the map indicate the amount of run-off for each catchment ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/ooompaloompa123/Misc/streamflow01.jpg

I'm actually very grateful to have bought my land in one of the "grey" areas on the map ... God help me (and I know He won't! :) ) when it turns "green" !

There are a few comments I could make about this data, but I'll leave it for others, for now, anyway. I didn't intend this as a "my dam is bigger than yours!" posting, but if you look at that stuff above, there are a few things to think about.

That's a great map, cheers. interestingly, if i'm reading this right, it seems that sw wa's water quality is worse than the murrays! nw wa seems to have a lot of good quality water runoff. the whole of northern australia looks good. i think the reason why schemes have failed up that way is more about distance to markets than anything else, and that's changing now there is a refocus towards se asia.

This is quite an old map ... as you've observed, there's plenty of water up north, but they have different annual cycles to the the south. They have a "wet" and a "dry", both of which are a bit vicious. The railway line at Katherine was put out of action last year.

It's interesting to see where the dams have been built. The list provided is only the largest reservoirs in each state ... total capacity would be more interesting.

It would be good to see regional towns and cities in the North take off with massive growth to alleviate the sprawl in some of our cities.

Sure that rainfall is cyclical up there but you are almost always guaranteed rain in the wet season so well planned dams (that minimise environmental impact as much as possible) could sustain a much larger population and irrigation base.

Why not just continue the growth in the larger cities without increasing the sprawl and using desalination so there is no reliance on rain and less environmental Impacts from dams.

The Twin cities Albury - Wodonga in 50 years will hit a few hundred thousand. Both Combined is currently 101 000... Now with the brand new hume highway bringing major business to the area its only going to get bigger. The highest builing is 9 stories which is lame.. But as i moved 3mths ago there was about 3 10+st proposals, and also a big waterfront master plan.. Big things could happen, it has a key location between sydney and melbourne. blah blah

These Predictions are quite wild (I found on the OZ property forum)

1996

City Population
Sydney 3,881,100
Melbourne 3,283,300
Brisbane 1,520,000
Perth 1,295,100
Adelaide 1,078,400
Newcastle 463,400
Goldcoast / Tweed 354,100
Greater Canberra 345,100
Wollongong 255,700
Hobart 195,700
Sunshine Coast 156,400
Geelong 152,200
Townsville 122,400
Cairns 106,700
Towoomba 102,000
Launceston 98,800
Darwin 95,800
Albury / Wodonga 92,700
Burnie / Devonport 79,200

2001

City Population
Sydney 4,154,700
Melbourne 3,488,800
Brisbane 1,653,400
Perth 1,397,000
Adelaide 1,110,500
Newcastle 494,400
Goldcoast / Tweed 426,400
Gr Canberra 364,400
Wollongong 271,100
Hobart 197,800
Sunshine Coast 185,700
Geelong 160,100
Townville 134,600
Cairns 113,400
Toowoomba 109,300
Darwin 108,200
Launceston 98,800
Albury / Wodonga 97,900
Burnie / Devonport 77,600

2006

Sydney 4,445,529
Melbourne 3,698,128
Brisbane 1,793,939
Perth 1,501,775
Adelaide 1,143,815
Newcastle 526,536
Gold Coast / Tweed 507,416
Greater Canberra 384,442
Wollongong 287,366
Sunshine Coast 218,198
Hobart 199,778
Geelong 168,105
Townsville 147,387
Darwin 121,725
Cairns 120,204
Toowoomba 116,951
Albury / Wodonga 103,285
Launceston 98,800
Ballarat 87,882
Bendigo 85,279

2011

Sydney 4,756,716
Melbourne 3,920,016
Brisbane 1,946,424
Perth 1,614,408
Adelaide 1,178,129
Gold Coast / Tweed 603,825
Newcastle 560,761
Greater Canberra 405,586
Wollongong 304,608
Sunshine Coast 256,382
Hobart 201,776
Geelong 176,510
Townsville 161,389
Darwin 136,941
Cairns 127,416
Toowoomba 125,138
Albury / Wodonga 108,965
Launceston 98,800
Ballarat 92,715
Bendigo 91,249

2016

Sydney 5,089,686
Melbourne 4,155,217
Brisbane 2,111,870
Perth 1,735,489
Adelaide 1,213,473
Gold Coast / Tweed 718,552
Newcastle 597,210
Greater Canberra 427,894
Wollongong 322,884
Sunshine Coast 301,249
Hobart 203,794
Geelong 185,336
Townsville 176,721
Darwin 154,058
Cairns 135,061
Toowoomba 133,897
Albury / Wodonga 114,958
Mandurah 101,278
Launceston 98,800
Ballarat 97,814

2021

Sydney 5,445,964
Melbourne 4,404,530
Brisbane 2,291,379
Perth 1,865,650
Adelaide 1,249,878
Gold Coast / Tweed 855,077
Newcastle 636,029
Greater Canberra 451,428
Sunshine Coast 353,967
Wollongong 342,258
Hobart 205,831
Geelong 194,603
Townsville 193,509
Darwin 173,315
Toowoomba 143,270
Cairns 143,165
Albury / Wodonga 121,281
Mandurah 120,521
Bendigo 104,470
Ballarat 103,194

2031

Sydney 6,235,084
Melbourne 4,948,929
Brisbane 2,697,468
Perth 2,155,992
Adelaide 1,325,995
Gold Coast / Tweed 1,210,874
Newcastle 721,400
Greater Canberra 502,450
Sunshine Coast 488,696
Wollongong 384,561
Townsville 232,022
Darwin 219,352
Geelong 214,549
Hobart 209,969
Mandurah 170,670
Toowoomba 164,030
Cairns 160,860
Albury / Wodonga 134,989
Bunbury 128,771
Bendigo 119,608

2041

Sydney 7,138,548
Melbourne 5,560,617
Brisbane 3,175,527
Perth 2,491,519
Gold Coast / Tweed 1,714,719
Adelaide 1,406,748
Newcastle 818,230
Sunshine Coast 674,706
Greater Canberra 559,240
Wollongong 432,092
Townsville 278,201
Darwin 277,618
Mandurah 241,685
Geelong 236,541
Hobart 214,189
Toowoomba 187,798
Cairns 180,742
Bunbury 176,275
Albury / Wodonga 150,246
Bendigo 136,939

2051

Sydney 8,172,924
Melbourne 6,247,909
Brisbane 3,738,310
Perth 2,879,261
Gold Coast / Tweed 2,428,213
Adelaide 1,492,419
Sunshine Coast 931,517
Newcastle 928,057
Greater Canberra 622,448
Wollongong 485,499
Darwin 351,360
Mandurah 342,250
Townsville 333,569
Geelong 260,786
Bunbury 241,303
Hobart 218,494
Toowoomba 215,010
Cairns 203,082
Albury / Wodonga 167,227
Pt Macquarie 160,970

Jump to 2100
Sydney 15,867,020
Gold Coast / Tweed 13,386,343
Melbourne 11,062,386
Brisbane 8,319,825
Perth 5,851,445
Sunshine Coast 4,533,527
Adelaide 1,994,003
Mandurah 1,886,771
Newcastle 1,720,825
Bunbury 1,126,195
Darwin 1,115,624
Greater Canberra 1,052,145
Wollongong 859,612
Townsville 812,317
Pt Macquarie 661,834
Geelong 420,747
Toowoomba 417,423
Cairns 359,572
Bendigo 304,379
Albury / Wodonga 282,670

Imagine SEQ with 30 million people! Crazy Talk.
How would you fix these estimates: http://www.world-gazetteer.com/c/c_au.htm
Canberra already has 333,000 people that says 325,000 and Sydney's looks qute large in that.

These Predictions are quite wild (I found on the OZ property forum)

Jump to 2100

Perth 5,851,445
Adelaide 1,994,003
Darwin 1,115,624


Why Adelaide's such slow growth? in 100 years it will double but Perth will increase 3.5 fold and Darwin 11 fold!!!
(please i want a resonable answer and not start a big dick swinging comp)

Also chris_underscore47, have you got statewide predictions?

word on the street is the drought will soon end. this could boom population growth with plentiful water sources

Also chris_underscore47, have you got statewide predictions?

Well I also found this on the OZproperty forum (thanks to "dallas")

1996
Mackay 61,100 (1.2%)
Coffs Harbor 42,100 (1.8%)
Mildura 41,000 (1.8%)
Hobart 195,700 (0.2%)
Darwin 95,800 (2.5%)
Pt Macquarie 32,700 (3.1%)
Geraldton 29,700 (1.2%)
Hervey Bay 35,900 (2%)
Warnambol 27,400 (1.6%)

2001
Mackay 64,800
Coffs Harbor 46,100
Mildura 45,000
Hobart 197,800
Darwin 108,200
Pt Macquarie 38,100
Geraldton 31,500
Hervey Bay 39,700
Warnambol 29,600

2006
Mackay 68,688
Coffs Harbor 50,249
Mildura 49.050
Hobart 199,788
Darwin 121,725
Pt Macquarie 44,006
Geraldton 33,390
Hervey Bay 43,670
Warnambol 31,968

2011
Mackay 72,809
Coffs Harbor 54,711
Mildura 53,465
Hobart 201,776
Darwin 136,941
Pt Macquarie 50,826
Geraldton 35,393
Hervey Bay 48,037
Warnambol 34,525

2016
Mackay 77,178
Coffs Harbor 59,701
Mildura 58,276
Hobart 203,794
Darwin 154,058
Pt Macquarie 58,704
Geraldton 37,517
Hervey Bay 52,841
Warnambol 37,287

2021
Mackay 81,809
Coffs Harbor 65,074
Mildura 63,521
Hobart 205,831
Darwin 173,315
Pt Macquarie 67,804
Geraldton 39,768
Hervey Bay 58,125
Warnambol 40,270

2026
Mackay 86,717
Coffs Harbor 70,931
Mildura 69,238
Hobart 207,890
Darwin 194,980
Pt Macquarie 78,313
Geraldton 42,154
Hervey Bay 63,937
Warnambol 43,492

2100
Mackay 205,470
Coffs Harbor 254,097
Mildura 248,034
Hobart 240,876
Darwin 1,115,624
Pt Macquarie 661,834
Geraldton 99,881
Hervey Bay 262,226
Warnambol 135,021

Why Adelaide's such slow growth? in 100 years it will double but Perth will increase 3.5 fold and Darwin 11 fold!!!
(please i want a resonable answer and not start a big dick swinging comp)

Every single Population growth prediction i have looked at (from goverment stats etc.) all have Adelaide lagging and not showing significant growth in up to 50 years in advance, so i guess there must be some sort of logic to it? Even to date All of the capitals have shown significant growth but Adelaide has stayed around the 1.1 million mark for a while now

No logic at all, predictions are nothing; no one can predict the future.

No population growth figures stay the same, Adelaide and SA's population growth is improving every year now (now being 0.9% compared to 0.5% a few years ago [15 year high]) and the number of people moving out of SA is falling...

Plus SA is starting to emerge from one of its darkest times in history *State Bank Collapse* which has hurt Adelaide and SA big time.

In the 1970s Melbourne was predicted to become a ghost town, of course never happened.

are these just some dudes fanciful predictions or have they been done by a reputable source using scientific and statistical estimation methods?

seq doesn't even have enough water for it's current population let alone over 30 million! i've read that population will stabilise in about 20-50 years and may even drop back a bit (from the figure at that time).

unless there's been a prediction for some terraforming invention that is going to be created, australia could not support that population in 2100 imo.

So these predictions are just based on the current growth rate multiplied by X amount of years? if so that seems silly due to the fact it doesnt take into account any economic or social factors.

I think Adelaide will have a purple patch at some point in the future and grow a bit faster than predicted. I dont hold out a lot of hope for Brisbane and Gold Coast to continue like they have been, too many planning problems may hurt things up that way from what I hear. Perth of course will continue to rely on the commodities sector and is impossible to predict. Could boom for ages or it could slow down to say Adelaide growth levels.

The total population of all cities in the projection for 2100 is 76 million. For the 2006 population it is 16 million. This is roughly a 2% growth rate per year. Australia is doing around 1% overall and if anything is expected to slow. So i'd say the projections are generally too high. Overall they seem ok extrapolations of current growth. However I think SEQ won't be able to maintain a similar growth rate all the way up to 30 million, I can't imagine it not slowing down sometime before then.

Just for some interest I managed to find some historical population figures. I've tried a few time in past and failed so I'm happy about this. Link to http://books.mongabay.com/population_estimates/full/Sydney-Australia.html

In 1950:
Sydney 1 696 000
Melbourne 1 331 000
Brisbane 442 000
Adelaide 430 000
Perth 312 000

That is all listed there, and I have no idea how good these are.

that website ^^ states that sydney's population will be 3,928,000 in 2015?

The population Chrisunderscore posted is completley wacked out. If Ozproperty are going to make such a guess they should atleast look at the ABS if anything. ABS is guessing in 2051 Melbourne will have 5.9 million and Sydney will have 6.3 million, and that is probably wrong.

i also agree that the estimates i posted were 'wacked out'.
So when you say the ABS population predictions for 2051 are probably wrong, do you mean too much to too little?