Re: [AUS] Radio forum on public transport

[craig@ina.com.au (Craig Read)]

On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:05:16 +0000, Leif
<leif.hanlen@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:

<snip>

>A system - not a miss-mash as we have in Australia, but a system - will
>encourage people to use it. Take two extremes:
>
>Houston opted for the drive-my-car-cause-I-damn-well-can approach: the
>city is large, it is sprawling, it has a serious amount of space devoted
>to either car parking lots, or road surface... to try to put public
>transport into a city like Houston is (and I have seen the attempt) a
>waste of time.

The same could be said for L.A. where the public transport companies
(trams) were purchased by the car manufacturers and then shut down.
Now the only public transport option is Buses.

>Rome opted for the catch-a-bus-or-train-you-idiot and actually banned
>cars completely from the CBD. People use the system... including the
>highly paid individuals who may still own their own ferrari at home. The
>system is there, people use it. 

Some of the European cities (I can't remember which) also have push
bikes available all over the place.  You put coins in (like shopping
trolleys) to unlock a bike, ride it to your destination and lock it
again.  Apparently, it's very successful.  But, I doubt it would help
in cities that are spread out like Melbourne.  Even in the Melbourne
CBD the hills would prove too much for the average commuter.  Our
cities aren't dense enough to make this sort of option viable.

>Melbourne has a dogs-breakfast as far as getting anywhere, so you drive
>a car... because that's what you think is necessary... and so, to cope,
>the city spreads out, making public transport les and less possible. A
>sprawling city does not accomodate itself to a public transport system.
>I think it's fairly obvious why.

Melbourne it OK as long as you only work in the CBD or along your
local train or tram line.  Buses are a joke as they are much slower
than any other form of transport and the routes are (for the most
part) hopeless.

>Sydney to a lesser extent - certainly the western suburbs look like a
>pre-shooler's drawing as far as planning goes.

I thought all of Sydney was like that!  ;-)

>What I can't understand is why it is seen to be necessary to waste
>perfectly good infrastructure: we have the capability, we have the buses
>the trams the trains AND THE TAXIS, yet we still insist on building more
>roads.
>
>Leif.

It is because our cities are growing.  It takes a long time for the
public transport to catch up.  Taxis are too expensive and public
transport is usually too inconvenent (or just too slow).

I read an article about 12 months ago that talked about road usage vs
public transport as cities grew in Europe.  The statistics took into
account the size of cities over the last 1000 years and the roads and
transport options that were in place at the time.  Some of the key
findings in this research were:

The "average" travelling time to work is always 30 minutes.  That
appears to be what most people will take on a daily basis.  When
freeways are updated the travelling time drops and the city spreads
out until things average out again.  Because of this, upgrading
freeways is a never-ending task and upgrading public transport has
better long-term effects.

Good public transport improves the over all prosperity of a city.
IIRC this was because the roads don't get as clogged by commuters and
are left free for people who REALLY need them.  ie.  Leaving the roads
available to buses, taxis, couriers, trucks, etc. means that there are
less delays in the delivery of goods and people.

Cheers...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1986 Lotus Excel S.E.