Re: Cars make more economic sense than transit: fact

[qldspeed-spamsevil@geocities.com (qldspeed)]

On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:41:39 +0800, Iskandar Baharuddin
<brengsek@highway1.com.au> wrote:

>trekkerjon@mailcity.com wrote:
>> 
>> > The "studies" of the advantages of public transport invariably
>> > leave out one key factor: the value of the time of the
>> > passenger.
>> 
>> Do you mean (Time Spent as Driver: fighting traffic, waiting
>>    in lines)
>>        versus (Time Spent as Passenger: sitting reading the
>>         paper, or noticing the other human beings that inhabit
>>         this planet.)?
>> >
>> > When someone comes up with a public transport systems that goes
>> > where I want to go when I want to go, and fast, I will happily
>> > sell the car.
>> 
>>  Why the (Either/Or)?   I would rather have mass transit for
>>     regular commuting- and save my car for optional things
>>     like travelling to the beach or the mountains.
>
>Depends on how often you go. For some people it would make more
>sense to hire a car.
>
>Hey, my original point was that the studies do not take into
>account the time of the driver/passenger.
>
>As various posters have pointed out, sometimes the time is
>useful (when you have a seat on a train and can read in comfort)
>and sometimes it is a dead waste.
>
>Next study, have a look at this issue and see what comes up. The
>answer will be, of course, that it depends on the quality of the
>public transport, surprise, surprise.
>
>Then have a look at the total cost of providing that quality
>transport, and ways of funding it.

Absolutely Izzy!!

To restate what only the slow among us haven't figured out: The
problem with public transport, at its current level of service and
funding, is only avaliable/attractive to about 15% of the population
(1994 Brisbane study I think)  

The reasons for this are many, but a large part of the problem is the
time factor - either it simply takes too long, you have to make
several connections, you have to walk too far at one end of the other,
etc. etc. versus the point to point car method, which is fast,
convenient, relatively inexpensive and available to your own schedule.


My point is, that taking the above into consideration, to bring the
present systems of public transport up to a level where even 30% of
the public would find public transport a viable attractive option,
would cost a fortune - Well beyond to cost of fixing up the general
road systems, which would benefit 100% of the population.

Forcing people to use public transport by manipulating the price and
availability of parking, artificially creating traffic congestion, and
so on is coming at the problem from the wrong end. The problem is not
the congestion or the number of cars on the road. These are simply
symptoms of the real problem.

If we focus on the root cause - the fundamental needs that we as a
society have (instead of the by-products of the problem - ie.
congestion) The problem is "that people have a need to travel, cost
AND time effectively, and that need is inadequately serviced by either
the public transport system, or the road system, at the moment."  

Once we state our problem correctly, we can see that many of the so
called solutions are just hoaxes. They aim to address one or the other
of the symptoms without ever solving the fundamental problem of people
needing to travel efficiently. 

Of all the possible solutions that adequately address the fundamental
problem, the least cost option is to build more and better roads in
and around the city centres.

Qldspeed

>
>-- 
>Regards,
>
>Izzy
>
>"Stop the world - I want to get off!"