Re: [AUS] Radio forum on public transport

["grif" <grif@home.com>]

The only problem with all the arguments over trains, buses etc
is you largely ignore the fact that you cannot move goods and
services around a city on public transport.
    There is more to transport than just commuting to work.
Freeways speed the movement of goods / services around a city
during the off-peak times even if they do get a bit congested
during the peak.  Steve

Alan Luchetti wrote in message <7lhoik$vul$1@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
>
>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
>  \-/
>
>
>
>
>
>