Re: Cars make more economic sense than transit: fact

[Iskandar Baharuddin <brengsek@highway1.com.au>]

Matt Cremer wrote:
> 
> qldspeed wrote in message <379c4c3d.8135048@bri-news.tpg.com.au>...
> ...
> >Even people who use rail exclusively cannot escape some reliance on
> >the road network (even hermits need food deliveries) - hence I stand
> >by my 100% population gets the benefit of a better more free flowing
> >(and hence lower polution) traffic system.
> ...
> 
> You seem to be talking about infinite resources here. "Keep public
> transport the way it is, just spend lots more on roads". Well, there aren't
> infinite resources, and making public transport work and a better
> option for people (none of this "dig up the city so you can't drive in it"
> crap, that's just idiocy) makes more sense than spending more on
> private transport and forgetting public transport. Because if you
> forget public transport, those 1000 people being ferried into the city
> on ?6? railway lines every 3 minutes for the peak 2 hours would all
> be blocking _you_ in a single car per person each morning ...
> 
> -Forg (Elsewhere)

You do not need infinite resources. You need to supply the
resources people are prepared to pay for, and there is
definitely a limit to that!

Once again you are focusing on the people who commute from the
suburbs to the CBD. This is a fraction of total work-related
travel.

The solution to the CBD problem is quite simple: a fee on car
parking spaces set at a level to achieve equilibrium between
supply and demand for private car transport.

The reason this is not done is because the Federal and state
governments are the heaviest users of private car parking in the
CBDs of Australia.

-- 
Regards,

Izzy

"Stop the world - I want to get off!"