Re: Cars make more economic sense than transit: fact

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

<snip>
>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)  

I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than 15% in some of the other
capital cities.  Does anybody know of an un-biased source of figures?

>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.

True on all counts!  When it can take up to 3 hours to get from one
end of a city to the other using public transport, and less than half
that by car.  The public transport will lose!

>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.

That depends on who pays for fixing the road systems and whether they
do it right the first time.  If the federal government pay for a road
then everybody pays for it, whether they use it or not.  Public
transport is maintained by each state.

When the SE freeway was completed in Melbourne (somewhere in the 60s I
think) it was known that the freeway could not handle the current
traffic, let a lone future traffic.  If governments continue this sort
of short sightedness we will be throwing even more money away!

>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.

Agreed, making parking too expensive and limiting road usage will not
fix the problem or it's symptoms.

>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."  

Then why can't it be solved by fixing both?  One of the main problems
is that they don't work together!  If you fix the congestion problem
then buses start working more effectively.  If you make the buses and
trains co-ordinate properly then you fix the connection problems.
High speed trains would also fix a lot of the public transport
problems in Melbourne.  But our governments don't want to spend money
on upgrading infrastructure so that won't happen.

>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. 

Which solutions are hoaxes?  Surely fixing public transport isn't a
hoax.  There are still a lot of people who have no other choice.  And
it does work in other countries!  The limiting of traffic and increase
in parking expenses definitely doesn't solve the problem.  But it does
deter a small percentage of people from taking their cars.  Having
transit lanes does seem to alleviate congestion a little.  But only
for people who are in a position to take advantage of them.

>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.

But that's a never-ending cost option.  We will NEVER finish building
roads.  I spelt that out in an earlier post.  If you improve the
freeway, people move further out and the freeway clogs up again.

The freeways in Melbourne have proved this point very well.  Before
the SE was extended past Glen Iris, Pakenham was a very small town
with very few people living in it.  After the freeway was extended,
Pakenham grew exponentially and now people are moving further out to
Cranbourne and beyond.  The freeway is as clogged as ever and the only
real improvement has been the removal of traffic lights.

The same has occured all over Melbourne.  People now commute from
Baccus Marsh (West), Rosebud (South), Gisborne (North) and Gembrook
(East) to the CBD for work.  I can remember when these places were
holliday destinations for Melbournians.

Even once the tunnel is completed I don't see the roads situation
improving.  People will just find it possible to look for employment
on the opposite side of the city.  They will still clog up the freeway
and we will end up with having a lot more freeway to maintain.

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