Re: [AUS] Radio forum on public transport

["Alan Luchetti" <luchettii@hotmail.com>]

qldspeed <qldspeed-spamsevil@geocities.com> wrote ...
>Alan Luchetti wrote -
>>qldspeed wrote -
>>> David Bromage <dbromage@omni.com.au> wrote:
    (quoting an ABC Earthwatch)

> I cannot see any reason to respond, other than to
> note that you have never debated one single point
> I made

OK.  Here goes.  I've snipped the utter crap and
isolated what might qualify as 'points'.

>>>Hmmm. perhaps the problems with public transport
>>>are just too insurmountable? It hasn't been
>>>through lack of trying to force people to use it,
>>>and in spite of all this.....
>>>
>>>>Australians have abandoned public transport in >>>>droves since the
1950s and traffic congestion
>>>>is worse than ever, despite massive
>>>>road-building programs.

In the 1950s the car became the best thing since
sliced bread: suddenly generally affordable,
point-A-to-point-B, comfortable, private, flexible.  Naturally public
transport entered into a
downward spiral: less custom > service cutbacks >
less frequency & coverage > still less custom >
still less frequency & coverage > increasing unprofitability.

Extrapolation of that process would have meant
the extinction of public transport but for 3
things:
a) the onset of road congestion;
b) the inability of roads alone to meet peak
   CBD transport demand;
b) the mobility needs of those too young, old,
   poor or incapacitated to drive.

Only those unperspicacious enough not to have
foreseen this or vacuous enough not have
perceived it in hindsight could advance
pointless nonsense like "the problems with
public transport are just too insurmountable".


>>>>Australians have abandoned public transport
>>>>in droves since the 1950s and traffic
>>>>congestion is worse than ever, despite
>>>>massive road-building programs.
>>>
>>>....that have been more oriented towards
>>>buses than cars, because transport planners
>>>have been preoccupied with public transport
>>>that clearly nobody really wants to use,
>>>and have neglected their duty to "the other
>>>85%" who either can not or will not conform.

Sure we'd all prefer to use cars.  No question.
That's why we're overloading roads quicker than
we can afford to build them, despite the fact
they (with associated parking) occupy over 30%
of total urban land area.

Bus-oriented?  Only recently.  Road agencies
gave buses scant regard until they needed
their traveller-per-vehicle efficiency to manage
peak road loadings.  Hence transit lanes etc.

Your "other 85%" mostly have a public transport
alternative.  The remaining 15% (accepting your
figure for argument's sake only) who can't drive
have no alternative.  In a nutshell, private car
use is mostly a highly desirable optional extra
while public transport is a basic necessity.


>>>Now Brisbane is indulging in a monstrous set
>>>of BUSWAYs - a huge waste of funds that could
>>>have been better spent solving the real
>>>problems of the city. When was the last time
>>>they built a bridge over the Brisbane river?

Tell us what the 'real problems' are, and maybe
we can repond intelligently.  Brisbane needs
another bridge after Gateway?  Find a company
that wants to build it with toll financing.
There's plenty in the business.  Either it stacks
up or it doesn't.  But don't ask all taxpayers
to fund a major investment that not all taxpayers
have any use for.

Anyway, aren't you glad they're shifting buses
off the roads to free up space for cars?


>>>>"The problem is lack of public transport
>>>> planning - due initially to competition
>>>> between multiple, rival operators competing
>>>> with each other rather than the car and
>>>> exacerbated by the technology-fetishism of
>>>> engineers and 'economic rationalist'
>>>> attempts to promote competition."
>>>>Paul Mees, Melbourne University
>>>
>>>Hang on... we've had nothing BUT public
>>>transport planning - at the expense of sensible
>>>integrated 'transport planning' for all users
>>>of the road network.

Give us a break.  Who planned all the freeways
with no eye to their suitability for or
integration with public transport?  Blind Freddy
and I agree we need integrated transport and land
use planning for all public and private transport
users, all residents and all businesses.


>>>>"The car is the technology which involves
>>>>the biggest number of employees, the highest
>>>>advertising budget, the largest annual
>>>>accidental death rate and the biggest
>>>>contribution to global warming.
>>>>How do you begin to approach managing something
>>>>so popular and yet so destructive?"
>>>>Peter Newman, The New Internationalist, June 1999

>>>Hmmmm ... perhaps 10 million people know
>>>something that Peter Newman clearly doesn't.

He said it's popular.  Are you saying 10 million of
us don't know it's destructive?


>>As for the productivity commission report.
(http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/37urbant/)
>>I've read it and concluded it written written
>>by clowns like yourself, with a similar
>>(extremly low) level of insight and intellect.

As exemplied by such partisan ravings as this?

"Box A7.1: Is there a road user deficit?
Based on the estimates of urban road expenditure,
revenue allocated to urban motorists, and
congestion, accident and pollution costs in the
draft report, several participants concluded
that urban road users are not paying their way
when account is taken of all economic costs.
Some referred to this as the road users' deficit:
· the ACTU/Public Transport Unions (Sub. 271,
p. 24) estimated a road user deficit of $4.4
billion in 1990-91;
· the Coalition for Urban Transport Sanity
(Sub. 250, p. 6) estimated a deficit of $10
billion in 1990-91; and
· Dr Quiggin (Sub. 213) estimated total costs
for urban road users of around $10.7 billion,
compared with estimated revenues of $4.9
billion.
In contrast, the Australian Automobile
Association (Sub. 279) estimated economic costs
of urban road use (at $5.6 billion) to be less
than the revenues attributed to urban motorists
($6.4 billion).
The main reasons for the differing conclusions
are the unreliability of much of the data
used (especially the estimates of third party
effects, as discussed in chapters A9 and A10),
and the different methodologies in the various
studies. For example, CUTS included 50 per
cent of the public transport deficit in road
user costs, and included only a portion of total
revenues. The other studies included either the
full amount or only a portion of total revenues.
Dr Quiggin calculated an annual capital cost
for urban roads, while the other comparisons
included total amounts spent on urban roads.
The ACTU/Public Transport Unions extrapolated
the estimate of congestion costs for Sydney
and Melbourne to derive an Australia-wide
estimate, CUTS used the estimate for Sydney
and Melbourne only, while the AAA (using a
different methodology altogether) came up
with a much lower estimate of congestion for
four of the capital cities.
Other available information also presents a
conflicting picture. For example, the NSW
Department of Transport noted that road users
(both urban and non-urban) may not be covering
all the costs they impose:
On the basis of the principle that roads
should recover their full economic costs,
including a return on capital invested and
externalities, there is evidence to suggest
that road users are not fully paying the
costs they impose. (Sub. 178, p. 16)
The ACT Government (Sub. 228, p. 3) also
considered that road users as a whole are not
paying the full economic cost. However, a
1985 South Australian study (based on data
for (1982-83) indicated that total road user
payments exceeded the cost of providing roads
as well as environmental costs (see Travers
Morgan 1985).
Some participants, including the Commonwealth
Department of Human Services and
Health (Sub. 321, p. 15), considered that the
opportunity cost of land provided for transport
routes should also be included in the assessment
of urban transport costs."

Seems like a pretty cautious, balanced and
open-minded approach to me.  Are you sure you've
read this like you say you have?  I only ask
because you describe it as the work of "clowns
like yourself, with a similar (extremly low)
level of insight and intellect".

  alan
   L
  \-/