The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The public transport myth > Comments

The public transport myth : Comments

By Alan Moran, published 24/10/2006

Compared to public transport, people find cars to be more convenient and lower cost.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
People find their cars much safer than public transport. You are less likely to get mugged in your own car; notwithstanding the odd episode of road rage.

Inside your own car you are unlikely to experience the pungent sour melange of unwashed bodies, bad breath, the strange gorilla-after-dark deodorant that some people use and of course escaping body gas.

I'll pass on that experience thank you.
Posted by Sage, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 9:32:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan, you must be having a laugh. Would I be right in suggesting this article was written with the sole intention of enraging "peak oilers?"
But, getting away from the emotional rhetoric of the notion of peak oil, Sage is quite correct. Public transport is not a pleasurable experience in any way, shape or form. This problem is not an easy one to address and yet building bigger and better roadways for personal and commercial transport won't prove to be a magic panacea either. Building up the road networks simply invites more patronage, which in turn quickly erodes the original intention of getting more people from point A to B as those same roadways become clogged with more people using personal transport that would otherwise be forced into using public transport. A better solution may be to create an environment whereby people didn't have to travel long distances to work. Eg: Practical urban planning where new workplace hubs are relocated to populas areas, more telecommuting, a shift away from the Kennet years where there was a tendancy to consolidate schools, hospitals and shires. Governments should take a good look at why people feel the need to spend two or three hours on the road each day simply to support their suburban lifestyles. Community groups must also take a greater part in this process. No one person has all the answers, but building more roadways certainly isn't one of them.
Posted by Wildcat, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:17:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The institute of deregulation has spoken, but only told a bit of the truth. Have a look at how living in the suburbs hits pocketbooks in Washington DC. Of course everyone there is rich!, and petrol is around 60 cents a litre, but, but, but, what about the folks in Melbourne?

Recent mass transit developments deserve a more impartial treatment, rather than pretending they're not there and hoping no-one else finds out. Even in the land of milk, honey and rampant deregulation, there are strong counter-currents. Have a look at the Portland Light Rail: a safe ride, and an inexpensive one.

And what happens when petrol goes up again, after the US election?

Around D.C., a Cheaper House May Cost You
By Eric M. Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 12, 2006; Page A01

“One of the lures of the outer suburbs is more house -- maybe even one with a big yard -- for less money. But a new study shows that the ... costs of longer commutes are so high that they can outweigh the cheaper mortgage payments.

“A study of Washington and 27 other metropolitan areas by the Center for Housing Policy found that the costs of one-way commutes of as little as 12 to 15 miles ...[say 20 km] ... cancel any savings on lower-priced outer-suburban homes.
(snip)
“Barbara J. Lipman, an author of the study, said that people tend to focus on all the zeroes that differentiate the price of a closer-in house from one in the outer suburbs, but they don't realize how much they're spending on commuting costs, such as gas, tires and insurance.

“"Even if you save a couple of hundred dollars a month on your mortgage, it doesn't nearly outweigh the costs of the cars you are driving," she said.

“Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said the data highlight a disconnect between where people live and work.
(snip)
“"A three-car family puts a lot of money into depreciating assets, instead of into mortgages and college educations," he said.”
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:38:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspect the jury is still out. Please check this link, it holds that public transport use is increasing.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/21348

I'm a little wary of Demograhica stats. There seems to be a bias underpinned by Wendell Cox's desire for more freeways.
Posted by Hendo, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:47:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is public transport? None here unless I want to drive to the nearest bus stop only to find that the one bus goes nowhere near where I want to go.
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 12:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wildcat " Public transport is not a pleasurable experience in any way, shape or form." - it can be but!!

The good bits
I commute by rail to and from work. In the mornings I generally read, something I very much enjoy and far better than driving.
In the afternoons if I catch the right train I have a group of friends I sit with which provides some important social time.

The other side
- The seating arangements in QR's citytrain network were either designed by a very thin short people or accountants who have a company car. If I sit across from other people I don't always want my legs rubbing along theirs (ok sometimes thats a nice bit but those legs are generally shorter). Likewise if an obese person sits next to me I don't really want to have rolls of fat flowing over me and no room to move my arms.
- If my car has something broken I get it fixed, QR has a habit of leaving trains with broken inter-carriage doors, dodgy AC etc for far to long.
- If someone throws up in my car it is cleaned really thoroughly before anybody has to use that seat again.
- I don't plan trips where I know I'll be taking a bunch of people I don't have seats for. Most peak hour services require a significant number of passengers to stand, dangerous and uncomfortable.
- People who don't work close to their train station can't carry bikes on the train during peak hours.
- The station near my sons school has a waiting list for bike lockers.
- For some reason we have a massive gap in the afternoon between some services and then a bunch of trains closely timed. It must make sense to somebody but I don't get it.

Maybe time for some changes to the way train's are set up to make them a more comfortable option. Address some of those bits that people only put up with if the alternatives are worse.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 12:21:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is simple - impose a congestion tax on car commuters to busy areas, and a carbon tax redeemable for commercial vehicles and gradated for fuel economy, put the money into improving and extending public transport, then let's have another look at the economics.
Posted by PK, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 12:38:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Moran is aware of the issue that there are people
"who do not have a car or access to one" but seems quite content
with a transport system which does not cater for them.

He states that the "wishes of the individuals who comprise the
community ... are expressed in their transport choices" - this is
incorrect. So long as we do not have an adequate public transport
system our choices cannot express our preferences for such a system.

Likewise when we do not have the choice of living in a medium
density area which also has areas of clean safe public open space
nearby, our choices for a private back yard do not reflect a
preference for one over the other.

His assertion that you need 40000 or 25000 people per square mile
for "commercially viable" public transport systems seems like nonsense
(though he doesn't define "commercially viable"). He also says
"Melbourne is one of only a handful of world cities retaining" trams.
I wonder what "world cities" means - to me, this simply sounds like
ignorance.

An ignorance that is apparently shared by the developer of the
Demographia web site he refers to, in which the list of countries
includes just one European country.
Posted by jeremy, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 12:54:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You do not need to go far to find counterveiling arguements about the cost of public transport versus private car use - I wont go into them here - but they exists and are more compellimng than those put forward by our author - public transport in Melbourne is expensive -howoever costs are high because patronage is low - go to the Victoriam Public Transports Union web site for a comparison of costs and patroange - it is a simple presentation but tells a tale.

In high to medium density jursidictions public transprt has the potential to outstrip private vehicular transprt in terms of costs and efficiency - and stand on the Hume highway near Tarcutta for example and watch the squillions of B doubles and others thunder past and wonder - trains have got to be more efficient carriers
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 12:56:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is going to be no simple, brilliant idea that will solve this problem. You only have to look at the experience of major cities overseas to understand that there will continue to be tension between what the public appears to want and what governments appear to provide.

In many cases "what the public appears to want" is massively influenced by what is available. If the service isn't there, how can it be evaluated?

The maps in the article that show "access by car" and "access by public transport" may simply reflect availability; we don't know this, of course, because the maps do not give any indication. Some greater definition of the usage "corridors" caused by easier access to i) public transport and b) arterial roads is necessary before the maps become in any way meaningful.

And on the side of "what the government appears to provide" there is of course a trap for the unwary. Be careful what you wish for.

London introduced a congestion charge of 5 pounds per day in February 2003 to reduce inner-city road traffic. When the charge was raised in 2005 to 8 pounds ($20), the mayor pointed out that "Ninety per cent of people entering the zone do so by public transport. This will build on what has already been achieved in terms of extended bus provision, and in due course by providing additional underground capacity"

With this captive community, the latest round of fare increases on London's public transport system will take the shortest tube journey to 4 pounds ($10) and the shortest bus journey to 2 pounds ($5).

The concept of one "winning out" over the other is unrealistic.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 2:51:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is being apparently being discussed on the basis of either / or and not 'both'.

I live in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, I work in the CBD. I travel to work by public transport because for me the cost of parking in the CBD vastly exceeds the cost of public transport.

The fare is around $2.20 each way, the cost of petrol alone each way would be around a dollar, let alone the wear and tear on the vehicle, and the driver. It would take me around 20 minutes to drive each way, but the express bus that I catch, due to bus only lanes, takes about 30 minutes.

The vast majority of people travelling from the east into the CBD for work use public transport. If anything there is a greater demand for public transport than that which is catered for.

However, for shopping trips locally (say, 2.5k each way) I use the car, mainly for its load carrying capacity and convenience in going to where shopper parking is provided, and I use the car for cross city trips where public transport is not feasible.

For some journeys of up to 1.5k each way, I (shock, horror) walk.

For some journeys I use taxis, especially where other public transport is not feasible, but where I know parking will be difficult to find.

Each mode of transport has its advantages, and disadvantages, but also much depends on the area being serviced. I know that many people in Sydney's west complain about poor public transport, but insist in living in low density housing in battleaxe blocks.

You cannot have it both ways: either live in public transport friendly area, or live in an area which requires cars.
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 5:08:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In the case of urban change and the transport needs this brings, the US remains the best guide"

Having sat motionless for hours in hideous LA traffic, breathing in soupy thick smog, I am of the opinion that perhaps things aren't so peachy in the Good ol' US of A. Except for in the major cities, commuters are not offered a "choice" of transport options. The car is the be all and end all outside of city centres, and as such, the car has developed a special place in the American physce. And in the case of LA, despite an adequate rail system being in place, few people give up their cars.

There are a number of reasons for this, many of which have been mentioned by other posters. However, I believe it would do the city a world of good if the PT system was made more attractive. Australia is no different in this regard.
Posted by ChrisC, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 5:40:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Typical Alan Moran.

Ignore the pollution issue. Ignore the public welfare issue. Alan Moran is so enthusiastic about the private enterprise option that he thinks it will answer all problems.

Funny thing, as far as I know our champion of capitalism has never run his own business. Well I do and I have also worked in both private and public enterprises both here and in three other countries. I am an engineer and I think I would have a lot more practical experience than Alan.

He is so keen on the US example and ignores the fact that the US is the worlds greatest pollutor. Of course the public have chosen the option they want and they don't want the climate to change either. News for them - you can't have both. Sooner or later reality will bite, and no amount of academic economics will change that. Mother earth doesn't give a stuff about the Institute of Public Affairs.

Perhaps we will have to change our lifestyle Alan. What we want may be impossible.
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 8:10:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PK “It is simple . . . impose a congestion tax on car commuters to busy areas, and a carbon tax . . . put the money into improving and extending public transport,”

PK what you are suggesting is to ignore the lamentable and pathetic financial deficiencies of public transport to prop up the emotional notion that we must have it.

I would suggest

Compare the cost of providing roads for cars and public transport both without subsidy and both without the crippling tax burdens which motorists already pay so they are compared on the basis of “A level playing field”.

If cars are “cheaper” then the population who vote these profligate spending government galahs into office should insist that public transport be abolished, the tracks torn up and the freed up space used to provide additional ring roads and car parks.

Why do some people insist, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that we actually “need“ public transport?

If public transport was desirable and “economically viable” then it would fund itself. If it is not, then it deserves to be assigned to the history books.

Take a look at BART (not the fellow in the Simpsons but Bay Area Rapid Transit - just google “BART case study”) a classic in public transport mismanagement and incompetence on a grand scale.

Oh Sir Vivor (yeah!) the snippets – “putting money into depreciating assets instead of mortgage repayments” etc etc.

People will spend their residual income on what they like, not on what some opinionated pratt thinks they should spend it on.

The word is CHOICE. Most people have clearly shown a choice for cars in preference to inefficient, incompetent, inconvenient, dangerous and unhygienic public transport networks which consume ever increasing amounts of public funding to keep a bunch of retards in the equivalent to a public run sheltered workshop.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 9:35:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan, what tripe! And it seems you propagate this nonesense regularly! Not surprising though, as our media seems to enjoy the contention offered by ignorant commentators.

You apparently seem at ease using very selective data to demonstrate your case. This is deceptive and sneaky. There are so many reasons why your arguments are fallacious, many of which have been pointed out in previous comments. If you had actually lived in North America, you would know that many of your beloved car dependent cities have a 'dead or dying heart'. That is, business and residents have evacuated to the suburbs and locate near or in super malls. The economic loss in terms of productive rural land being paved, as well as the city core becoming a wasteland never gets a mention. The fact that pollution attributable to the transport sector kills twice as many people in Australia than car accidents - these words do not bother your pen. I could go on, but will simply refer you to peer reviewed articles on the subject. Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of American Cities" might be worth reading also.

For the record, yes I am an urban planner with expertise in urban transport systems and integration with land uses. And I have lived in North America. I am not sponsored by any political, public or private entity. Now, will you declare your interests...?
Posted by Justin W, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 9:56:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I recommend everyone who poo poos efficient public transport take a trip to Singapore and experience the MRT.

Of course, such an approach cannot be simply transplanted here, without some long forward planning.

But taken together, forward planning and good public transport can be a wonderful thing.

"I have a dream" :) to steal some famous words, of a series of population/business centres say between Melbourne and Albury, linked by a fast train.. and a circular MRT style train/tram deal around these centres. Perhaps 2 concentric loops... at least so as to make accessing places of employment easy by foot from the nearest Station.
This works very well in the CBD of Singapore, and Malaysia is not far behind. In fact the 'Cyber Jaya' concept of Malaysia with the growth corridor between the International Airport and the capital is quite visionary, (as long as you can stand an obligatory dose of Pavarotti occasionaly interrupting the wide screen TV doco you were enjoying)

Good public transport based on dispersed but well connected Business/employment centres is tremendous, not withstanding Sages initial rant :)

The car is also great for that added element of independance, but the concept of masses of cars moving like lemmings at .5k/h on the freeway during peak hour is not my kind of fun either.
Its the old story, new freeway, more cars.. same congestion.
I 'would' think anyone who endures the Monash going to and from work needs therapy, but having reviewed the experience myself, I think such commuters are past therapy :) it is a nightmare beyond belief that only the irredeemably insane would put themselves through.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 5:37:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aaah good old, right wing, free market Col Rouge. The word is CHOICE, you say, Col.

My choice is not to be poisoned by the pollution from the cars of those who refuse to use public transport because of the inconvenience, which is often relatively minor. My choice is not to see a further increae in global warming due to the same factor, nor depletion of oil reserves or a increase in unfavourable terms of trade due to unnecessarily high oil and car imports. My choice is not to see futher despoilation of the urban landscape through the building of ugly freeways and their filling with ugly traffic congestion, nor the construction of more new, far-flung, car-dependent housing estates.

Overuse of the private motor vehicle and is not a good thing for the individual, the economy or the the environment. Anyone who thinks that private vehicle kilometres travelled can expand infinitely and without serious consequences is living in a fool's paradise.
Posted by PK, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 9:37:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hamlet, not every one can afford the eastern suburbs, nor can all work in the CBD.
Many years ago, both my wife, & I worked in the Sydney CBD, & caught the train from Carringbah. It was a pleasant way to get to work, spoiled only by the fact that I required a car for work, sometimes.
Then my company moved to Padstow, as the city became less viable for business. Fortunately, we did not move to reduce my travel, now by car, as the only option, as my wife's employer, then moved to Zetland.
So, from my point of view, we then had a public transport system that was useless, & would never be able to serve our requirements.
This may not be the falt of the system, but it is the case for most of the public.
Our cities, & our places of employment, have grown with the car, & only the car can now service the transport requirements, a most unfortunate fact.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 10:00:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd take Alan's article a bit more seriously if it wasn't just recycled American rubbish. Look here http://www.demographia.com/dbx-transport.htm for some examples of where the ideas come from. He just plonks some American graphs from an anti-public transport think-tank in his article and we're expected to believe that they are; (1) accurate and (2) relevant to Australia? Lazy, lazy, lazy.

BOAZ_David, I agree with you on the merits pf Singapore's MRT, but it is not going to happen here. Firstly, Singapore has much higher population densities to make it feasible. Secondly, the level of government control in Singapore is more like the old USSR or China than Australia. Thus the massive dislocation of retrofitting a project like this to a city can be railroaded past any opposition. Thirdly, Singapore's planned economy means that they will pay for infrastructure and recoup the money over time (unlike our current short-term govt thinking). I'd rather live in a democracy than a one-party state, no matter how shiny and punctual the trains are.

My spouse and I make 8 trips to work each week, 6 by public transport. This means we only need 1 car between us, saving in excess of $5,000 per year. Should I feel guilty that other taxpayers are subsidising our lifestyle? According to Alan, those taxpayers have made a free choice to use their cars, so obviously I shouldn't
Posted by Johnj, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 10:42:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too many responses to answer all. In most cases people are looking for political solutions. Many will never be convinced by facts.
Sage wants a replication of the British "new towns" which failed because people don't live near their work and work needs are too flexible for the 25 years-in-one-job model.
Sir Vivor draws attention to some US research which has many problems. Among these it models household expenditure rather than using actual data, which is 40% the level. It also uses house prices based on 1999 and, in areas where the planners have prevailed, those prices have increased substantially.
Hasbeen wants more origianl research go do it!
JustinW admits to making his living from being a planner and cites ancient texts to prove it! It would be nice if IPA earned $1 million from car manufacturers, airlines, pigeon post and all other conspirators against public transport.
Posted by alan, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 3:49:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are previous examples of species including humans writing their societies out of existance. Doing what they wanted instead of what they required. Col Rouge is a perfect example.

Motor vehicles have the potential to destroy what we have. It doesn't matter what you want or what you choose. The environment doesn't ask you it behaves according to it's rules not yours. Of course you don't learn that in a commerce or economics degree.

And referring to Bay Area Rapid Transit does not make sense. As an engineer with some experience in the railway equipment area, BART was badly planned and conceived unlike dozens of successful urban transport systems elsewhere.

The reason public transport systems have to be subsidized is because motorists don't pay anything like the cost of their required infrastructure. Roads, policing the idiots, ambulences hospitalisation, environmental costs etc. Charge a realistic ammount and imagine the outcry by the ill informed.

So we are faced with subsidizing both the private transport and the public.
Posted by logic, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 6:27:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PK “Your choice…
Not to see global warming,
depletion of oil reserves
unfavourable Terms of Trade
despoliation of the urban landscape

No one has yet convinced me that “global warming” is an issue exclusively to do with private motor cars, it is inappropriate to assume removing cars will reduce global warming, especially when trams use all that “brown coal” generated electricity.
I doubt you own oil reserves, you get no say in their use.
I doubt what you trade would have any impact on Australia’s terms of trade, you don’t get to decide that either.
As for urban landscape, all them folk have to live somewhere, with or without cars.

what you seek is to impose your will on the choices of other people. That is plain selfish of you.

Individuals, whose petrol taxes subsidise incompetent public transport have the right to exercise their choices and not be restricted by your personal whim.

“Overuse of the private motor vehicle and is not a good thing for the individual, the economy or the environment.”

That is simply your personal opinion and a lot of people disagree with you.

Logic “BART was badly planned and conceived” – but it was the product of supposed “experts”.

Everyone quoting from the “Experts” and the one who admits to being a “town planner”, you are the ones to blame. Based on your track record thus far, we would be better off had we left you to play in the sand pit and got on with life without you.

“There are previous examples of species including humans writing their societies out of existence. Doing what they wanted instead of what they required. Col Rouge is a perfect example”

Individuals do everything, achieve everything and innovate to benefit everyone else.

If humanity is to move out of existence, it will be an individual which does it because – individuals are the ones who do everything.

Remove “individual” from society and what is left? Nothing!

As dear Margaret said, "Society does not exist…"
Society is merely a poorly applied collective noun for all the individuals who comprise it.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 7:47:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, the problem could be the other way around: It is because so many people have cars that your employer felt free to move to an area poorly served by public transport. If the employer thought that it could not keep its workers, or find an equally skilled workforce then it would not have moved away from public transport routes.

And it shows why we don't have better public transport than what we could have. If there was more demand for public transport it would be provided. That is a political reality. Instead there is a demand for roads and other forms of subsidy for those who drive.

A particular need is for transport that flows around the hubs rather than in and out of the centre. This of course will never happen until people not only demand it but then use it.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 11:22:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can tell that Col Rouge is one of those free-market libertarians, otherwise known as the Marxists of the right. Where Marxists had the delusion that collective action and altruism could run a society, Libertarians think society can purely run on selfishness and individualism.

"No one has yet convinced me that “global warming” is an issue exclusively to do with private motor cars, it is inappropriate to assume removing cars will reduce global warming, especially when trams use all that “brown coal” generated electricity.
I doubt you own oil reserves, you get no say in their use.
I doubt what you trade would have any impact on Australia’s terms of trade, you don’t get to decide that either."

Instead of actually answering some of these points, you simply say that he has no right to talk about them. What’s worse than a libertarian, is an authoritarian libertarian. "No one has yet convinced me", doesn't mean there is not a link (which there is, as a significant proportion of emissions come from private transportation), it is incredibly arrogant to think all because it hasn't been proved to YOU, that it therefore hasn't been proven. Libertarians typically do this. Science, Engineering, Ecology, Physics and other things that embarrass Libertarian economic/social theories are magicked away by not having any understanding of them and therefore simply denying or dismissing them as trivial.

"what you seek is to impose your will on the choices of other people. That is plain selfish of you."

What rubbish. This is done all the time to keep a society functioning. We enforce drug laws to keep the number of harmful drug addicts down. We enforce child protection laws to protect Children from abuse. In times of conflict, we draft citizens to fight so we can remain free(WW2 and the Japanese Advance). The list is endless. What's selfish is to be apart of a society and gain all the benefits of it but be unwilling to sacrifice anything for it. Typical of Libertarians.

The rest of your post is a barely coherent rant, which I wont bother with.
Posted by Bobalot, Thursday, 26 October 2006 9:50:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge

BART was the product of supposed “experts”. No it wssn't. All the expertise concerning public transport was in Europe as the US had let it's systems run down. Insead of going to Europe the Americans tried to do their own thing and failed. They eventually had to import European experience.

I don't care whether or not you are convinced about the automobile contribution to global warming your opinion is ill informed and is of no value. Cars do make a substantial contribution. For reasons you will probably not understand trams are still more efficient than cars despite their fuel. Incidentally a lot of their peak energy comes from hydro, but I don't expect you to know that.

The inhabitants of Thursday Island ruined their environment and then faced a food shortage which they solved by killing each other until they had a sustainable population. Good enonomic rationalism! The point is they had no science to enlighten them - we do.

And Col I consider it selfish to do something that has the potential to harm others. You rabbit on about choice, how about responsibility?

"Remove “individual” from society and what is left? Nothing!" If you destroy the environment there are no individials left. Your philosophy is selfish and silly. And what have the economic rationalists achieved? They are the ones who should stay in the sand pit while the real players keep us going.
Posted by logic, Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:01:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, you say:

'what you seek is to impose your will on the choices of other people. That is plain selfish of you.'

I say, by insisting on your right to keep driving your motor car without regard to the pollution and congetsion it causes, it is you that is imposing your will on the choices of other people. And, being selfish, of course you remain unconvinced about the plethora of evidence regarding the burning of fossil fuels, much of it by private car commuters, and climate change.

Par for the course for a Thatcherite/neocon
Posted by PK, Thursday, 26 October 2006 1:35:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bobtail “Libertarians think society can purely run on selfishness and individualism.”

FACT it the world is run on individualism.

Self and family first, extended family second. friends third, nation forth.

Fact you, bobbity, have a higher affinity, sense of responsibility and interest in your family than you do for mine. The difference between us, I admit it rather than hypocritically deny it.

As for “What's selfish is to be apart of a society and gain all the benefits of it but be unwilling to sacrifice anything for it.”

You do not know what benefits I endow this “society” with nor what “sacrifices” I have made, throughout my life, to become and discharge my responsibilities as an Australian Citizen. "Discharge" including participation in the taxation system, upholding our laws, contributing to the development of my profession in Australia, engaging in bringing up my children and more recently in developing an organisation which empowers others to earn an extremely good income.

Yours is simply the vitriol of the impotent.
Those who cannot moaning on at we who can.

So huff and puff all you want bobtail, you will not deter me from pointing out the transparency of the “kings new clothes” and the lies of failed politicians like Gore or socialism in general.

Logic “I don't care whether or not you are convinced about the automobile contribution to global warming your opinion is ill informed and is of no value.”

My vote counts as much as yours. My ability to persuade, when I want to persuade, would out shine yours on your best day (although I don’t bother to persuade here, this is play time and opportunity to leftie-bate).

As for responsibility, Responsibility is inseparable from choice. I discharge my responsibilities properly and challenge the efforts of politicians and social engineers to assume any right to exercise responsibility for me or in my name.
I make the decisions in and live my life. I do not need some socialist tosser playing power games and pretending they know best or trying to tell me when and how I should live or do anything.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 26 October 2006 2:20:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I recall, about 15 months ago, a study was released by a NSW uni, on the GHG emitted by various methods of transport. I heard a bit on the ABC radio one day, & thought it interesting, & expected to get to studdy it in detail. However, after mention on a couple of news bulletins, it disappeared of the face of the earth.
So, all I have is the headline. "Public Transport Produces 15% More GHG, Per passenger Kilometer, Than The Private Car".
The study was done in Sydney. I wonder just how it was wiped from the face of the earth so quickly.

The same thing occured quite a few years back, when the last blur green allege outbreak occurred in the Murry/Darling system. A South Australian expert, interviewed on the ABC radio stated that the outbreak was almost as bad as the 1902 outbreak.
This lasted three bulletins before it disappeared, replaced by someone claiming the problem was a new phenomena, caused by farming, & town wastes entering the river.
I wonder why I'm cynical?
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 26 October 2006 5:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some good points on all sides, particularly from D.B. who points out everyone can exercise their precious choice, take their car everywhere because it's convenient, then crawl along at 0.5 kmph.

I own a car but either cycle or catch the train to work. It saves me the stress I witness in most Sydney motorists, though I gotta breathe their poison.

The article doesn't even mention alternatives such as in the Netherlands, which rely heavily on cycleways. Perhaps we're all fat & happy after all.
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 26 October 2006 6:12:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

I do not know what your capabilities of persuasion are but if they are as good as you claim it is a pity given you insistance on your right to choose and damn all else coupled with you apparent lack of scientific and technical knowledge.

Your dislike of experts intrigues me. Who would you see if you had a severe illness? Apparently not a Doctor. Do you have an expertise or even a good knowledge of anything yourself.

And what do you say about passive smoking? Do you think you have the right to always do what you like regardless of it's affect on others? And what about rape or robbery. Is that OK if the criminal wants it?
Posted by logic, Thursday, 26 October 2006 6:36:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,

Bobtail,bobbity?

Ah, I see, Spelling my name incorrectly on purpose. Very witty.

"FACT it the world is run on individualism."

Really? Where is the proof for this? Tens of millions of people live communal lifestyles and communal aspects are apart of tens of millions more. Thousands of men have fought and died to defend their countries, people like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King etc. have given decades of their lives for a social struggle, the list is endless. I suspect your dislike for experts is because they demand facts and sources to back your assertions.

"Fact you, bobbity, have a higher affinity, sense of responsibility and interest in your family than you do for mine. The difference between us, I admit it rather than hypocritically deny it."

I, in fact never mentioned it. Using strawman arguments is a another typical libertarian tactic.

"You do not know what benefits I endow this “society” with nor what “sacrifices” I have made, throughout my life, to become and discharge my responsibilities as an Australian Citizen. "Discharge" including participation in the taxation system, upholding our laws, contributing to the development of my profession in Australia, engaging in bringing up my children and more recently in developing an organisation which empowers others to earn an extremely good income."

So? I pay my taxes too and a whole host of other things. All the rest of things you mentioned millions of other people do everyday. Like a typical Libertarian, you missed my main point completely(probably purposely). I pointed out that in a society the the free will of some is suppressed to the benefit of all. Such as enforcing drug laws, child protection laws, enforcing fire bans on properties, pollution controls on factory emmisions etc. Of course being unable to counter this point, like scientific evidence and expertise presented to you, you simply ignore it.

The rest of your point relating to me, is cheap insults. You seem almost frothing at the mouth. You are much closer in naive belief to those marxists that you dislike so much.
Posted by Bobalot, Friday, 27 October 2006 9:24:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen “"Public Transport Produces 15% More GHG, Per passenger Kilometer, Than The Private Car".

The ABC, as a mouth piece of the entrenched socialists, would have to bury that article, anything which disputes the need for collectivism is censored on the spot, God forbid people should be allowed to read or hear about the “politically incorrect” TRUTH.

Logic – I have been around long enough to decide for myself when someone is telling the truth, someone blowing smoke and others are just plain incompetent.

Having commuted on the London tube, regularly for 6 years in the 1970/1980s I recall what a putrid and demeaning experience it was, filthy seats and carriages, poor services which ran to suit the unionized drivers, the commuters be damned. I also recall when Dearest Maggie tore up the rail network monopoly.

When private coaches were allowed to compete with the London underground network ,my weekly travel costs dropped to one third of what the train service charged.

The expertise you talk of is merely a skill to fleece the consumer / commuter and hoodwink the rest of us into believing that public transport is necessary, (like other incompetent nationalized industries) the only expertise you could identify there is that of the conman and grifter.

Expertise, I hold professional qualifications and the respect of my peers in that profession. Similarly the clients who I supply competitive business services to. I do not any affirmation from you.

Oh “rape and robbery”. Hyperbole driven by desperation, completely illogical.

Oh and what I know is public transport is an uneconomic waste of resources which would not need the huge subsidies from petrol taxes paid by motorists if it were any good.

Bobalot “Nelson Mandela,”

There is an individual, someone who made choices in his life, someone who it would be hard to find another example of.

Using Nelson Mandela as an example when arguing against the worth or rights of individuals fails on more points than I can be bothered to mention.

Nelson Mandela survived and endured because he is, first and foremost, an exemplary INDIVIDUAL.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 27 October 2006 10:09:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, you are just a sad old Thatcherite and your contributions to this thread have thrown that into stark relief as never before. "ABC is a mouthpiece of entrenched socialists". What a laugh . What's next - reds under the bed? Are you also still worried about the communist menace and the yellow peril
Posted by PK, Friday, 27 October 2006 4:15:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

You say you are professional, I sometimes wonder.

So the London Underground was not comfortable to you. I once had an old car which smelt of petrol and rattled. By comparison the Tube would have been very comfortable. You see it depends on the quality of the service. Have you been on the Madrid or Hong Kong or Zurich Metros? Probably not. Public Transport is in many cities superior to car travel. And the Tube is still poor and expensive compared with those other cities. Maggie did not achieve much.

And you dismiss out of hand my argument against your apparent belief in absolute individual choice. I bought up the subject of rape and robbery as an extreme example of where individuals cannot be always allowed choice. A reducto absurdum argument, do you understand that? Say what is your profession?

And you quote Hasbeen on "Public Transport Produces 15% More GHG, Per passenger Kilometer, Than The Private Car". To an engineer with practical experience as well as a University education this sounds nonsense unless the public transport is under-utilized. The sort of thing that would be produced by the RACV or the NRMA by biased writers who claim to be engineers.

You are so egotistical and yet you mount an attempt at argument that would fail a year 12 student.
Posted by logic, Friday, 27 October 2006 6:43:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

Sorry a typo. I should have written "reducto ad absurdum"
Posted by logic, Friday, 27 October 2006 6:45:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Bobalot “Nelson Mandela,”

There is an individual, someone who made choices in his life, someone who it would be hard to find another example of."

There are people like these everyday, social workers, churchmen, etc. Not as famous, but whose altruism there is no doubt. Who contribute everyday to make a better society. They do not operate completely out of self interest and invidualism (Which Libertarians such as youself continually repeat like a prayer to your god which seems to be the free-market). Which is the point I have been trying to make, you make have been selectively ignoring. Governments and society work through both individualism and collective action not extremes of either. Name one Libertarian society that exists on earth that is relatively well off... the closest is Somalia. Weak Central Government, No regulations, No real system of taxation, No road rules, etc. It also happens to be one of the most poorest countries on Earth. It's funny how there is no rush of libertarians to go and live in this libertarian paradise.

"Nelson Mandela survived and endured because he is, first and foremost, an exemplary INDIVIDUAL."

What the is the point of this this mindless blathering? Everybody is an individual. No-one is saying that this is not the case. Like a typical Libertarian you keep trying bring up strawman arguments.

The world is built by the individuals and by societies. How can an individual operate if not within a society which has collective action? It is impossible. How can a business man be free to safely sell his goods if society as a whole has not agreed on laws? It is impossible.

As to another point, I have pointed out twice why sometimes individual choice or freedom is suppressed for the good of society. Twice you have simply ignored it. Libertarians typically do this, just like those delusional marxists. I can only assume you are not going to actually answer my point and instead keep posting the same old libertarian dogma over and over. So this will be my last post in this thread.
Posted by Bobalot, Saturday, 28 October 2006 5:32:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting debate. But the arguments look a tad familiar.

For anyone interested in the US public transport debate check out
The Centre for Transportation Excellence site at -

http://www.cfte.org/critics/who.asp

This provides an excellent guide to the arguments presented by anti transit critics (Neocons/Neoliberals et al) and their "impact" on the general public transport debate - its all there for all to see.

Enjoy !
Posted by Tory, Sunday, 29 October 2006 11:52:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PK – lunacy did not end with the fall of Berlin Wall

Logic “You are so egotistical and yet you mount an attempt at argument that would fail a year 12 student.”

My ego, maybe I have a lot to proud of. You just does not know but an “arrogant elitist”, would jump to such a conclusion.

I have the same voting rights as you and will continue to exercise them in the interests of all individuals, you included.

Bobalot “There are people like these everyday, social workers, churchmen, etc.”

It was you who chose “Nelson Mandela” to make the point I was responding to.

”There are people like these everyday, social workers, churchmen, etc. Not as famous, but whose altruism there is no doubt. Who contribute everyday to make a better society. They do not operate completely out of self interest and individualism”

Better "society" by helping other “individuals”.

The problem with this little piece of self righteous twaddle is, those who choose to be altruistic are exercising the same individuality as someone who chooses not to. It just suits bobalot’s personal political agenda to applaud them at this moment and to presume that some one who pursues a political values set different to bobalots value set, is non-altruistic and therefore undeserving of making choices for themselves.

Bobalot you are a closet dictator who demands conformity to you singular will. Please stay out of politics, you are better left in the closet.

As for “How can a business man be free to safely sell his goods if society as a whole has not agreed on laws?”

Think on this bobalot, People were trading goods well before laws were invented and they did it freely, with amicable benefits to both. That is what trade is about, free buyer and free seller, not the laws which govern trade but the trade itself.

“suppressed for the good of society”
OLO words limits. But – I repeat remove the individual and society is non-existent. Society does not make decisions, provide demand for or supply products, individual people do.

Your fretful whine is answered.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 29 October 2006 12:03:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

Stop being a pompous egotistical clown and we will be able to debate with you.

All that we know about you is that you consider yourself a professional and exceptional at what you do. What are your qualifications? What is it that you do that you consider yourself so good at?

You appear to criticise public transport based only on your perceptions of the performance of London Transport. You seem to have no experience with other excellent government systems such as Zürich, the Eusko Tren, Hong Kong, Singapore, Basel etc. You have the very unscholarly unprofessional habit of generalizing and dismissing expert evidence without even letting us know what expertise you may have.
Posted by logic, Monday, 30 October 2006 5:35:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic, so I am a pompous and egotistic clown?

And just what do you suggest we should call you?

You are “labelling” me Logic.

I could do the same with you but will content myself with suggesting, your “emotions” are getting the better of you and out running your “logic”, Logic.

As for qualifications, do some research, I have alluded to my professional background enough in past posts, why not get off your butt and go do some reading rather than expect me to pander to your indolent whims.

London Public Transport was a disaster when I lived there. Dallas (Texas) was just introducing the DART when I lived there but I never had need to use it, so cannot comment on its merits or otherwise.

Melbourne Public Transport is as big a basket case of incompetent and skewed culture that was London. Sydney is no different.

As for Zurich, Singapore etc. I would not comment on cities in which I have not lived, You only get to know the merits of a system by using it, Logic, not by pretending are or you know someone who was once given a good feed by the dept of transport of some obscure metropolis or by reading dog eared proipaganda of the travel pamphlets.

So, based on my experience of the public transport networks I have known, they are all crap.

Are you suggesting, based on your experience of systems in cities you might not have lived for any meaningful period of time that we should assume they are faultless?

Of so, you are relying and indulging our credulity and your credibility just too much.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 5:26:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge - 'Lunacy did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall'. Indeed not. Neither did it end with the demise of Thatcher and the decline in the supremacy of free market thinking. It's well and truly alive in the attitudes of the global warming deniers, in those that refuse to change their over-consuming and polluting ways, the future eaters. That's people like you, Col.
Posted by PK, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 7:36:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PK “in those that refuse to change their over-consuming and polluting ways, the future eaters. That's people like you, Col.”

Ah they used to say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel

Now, “couch environmentalism” is.

PK
I would suggest
Brazilians and Malaysians who cut down rain forests, increasing net carbon emissions by removing carbon absorbing trees from the planet are “future eaters”.
Third world breeders with more than 2 children are “future eaters”.
People who contribute to reducing child mortality in third world countries, without first finding a solution to population growth are “future eaters”.
Indian and Chinese industrialists using inefficient diesel engines and sulphurous fuels to produce electricity are future eaters.

I have repeatedly resisted requests from one of my neighbours to cut down some of my trees
(because they overshadow her back yard and washing line in winter).

I realize you did not know that but you simply jump to conclusions and make your simplistic assumptions and cast your small minded invective around to suit your own immature, uncouth and judgmentalist agenda.

PK do not assume, because you lack the maturity to deal with a conflicting opinion, that you have the monopoly on virtue.
You know nothing about me.
Get an education before you criticize others or be seen as a small minded and bigoted prat.

I suggest you grow up and learn from someone who (probably) has the benefit of a couple of decades of experience over you on which to draw and can smell a tosser at one hundred paces.

Thatcher did more for human and economic development than you could ever hope to. I suggest you learn to respect others more, because you are patently incapable of grasping the subtleties of national economics. Leave what you cannot understand to those who can.

The “regulated economy” has been tried and proven a complete failure, ask any East German, Hungarian, Ukrainian who is older than you and remembers the before and after of the Berlin wall. I doubt you even know why it was built
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 7:42:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wrong, Col. I assumed nothing, basing my criticism of you on comments that you yourself made on this thread. You reject the use of public transport and insist that you will continue to drive your car despite the contribution that makes to congestion, pollution and depletion of resources to name a few of the deleterious effects that private car use has. It does no good to point out that others may be bigger future eaters than you. When the future has been eaten, that's that. The free market and individual rights so precious to you now will be of no use to anyone anymore.

Then your post descends into the kind of boorish belligerence that you often litter OLO with, including false assumptions about me, funny after you accused me of making assumptions about you. I won't even deign to respond further to any of that stuff.
Posted by PK, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 3:49:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PK I express my experience of public transport. If you want to use “public transport” go ahead and use it but

Expect to pay the full economic price for that public transport service (unsubsidized by taxes or monopoly authority).

Do not expect a subsidy from private car users and I will not expect any subsidy from you, noting that the amounts of tax already levied on private motorists far exceeds the publicly borne cost of roads, transport management costs and hospital costs for car accident victims.

As for “It does no good to point out that others may be bigger future eaters than you.”

Before you dare criticize me again, I suggest you go and criticize those future eaters who I listed.

Until that time you are merely confirming your compliance to a corrupt opinion that you have seem to hang tom that you have some basis of authority over me and my actions.

You do not, you never will have. You are impotent and it shows in every post you make.

Socialism is the last refuge or the incompetent and inept. You are merely demonstrating how well you are suited to socialism.

Simply breathing condemns you as a “future eater”. I suggest you do the right thing and slash your wrists but don’t bother to criticize me, I have every right to ignore your puerile views and will.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 5:53:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear, sensitive Col. For an online bully, you don't take critcism very well, do you? "I have every right to ignore your puerile views and will." Not doing very well with that so far, Col. Your every response to me is getting more hysterical, more abusive, and more hilarious.

'Socialism is the last refuge or the incompetent and inept.' Gee, you really know how to hurt a guy, Col. Just brand him a socialist. That'll learn him.

"Before you dare criticize me again, I suggest you go and criticize those future eaters who I listed." No, I'm talking to you, Col. Don't try to hide behind somebody else.

"Do not expect a subsidy from private car users..' I expect them to pay the real cost of their car addiction through carbon taxes and congestion taxes. These aren't far off, now. Of course, you and other car addicts can always get out of your cars and stop eating the future, and you won't have to pay. Or you can try and find a 'non-socialist' country to move to where they will let you drive your car without taxes, at least while the oil lasts and the climate doesn't get so hot that the car cooks.

So, c'mon Col, don't give up on me now. You are getting to be very entertaining. And I know how much you want to have the last word. So, go on....
Posted by PK, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 8:19:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PK: "So, c'mon Col, don't give up on me now. You are getting to be very entertaining. And I know how much you want to have the last word. So, go on.... "

I'll second that. Col's kind of a cross between Alf Garnett, Basil Fawlty and the older Steptoe - and this forum would be impoverished without him. Of course, like those wonderful characters, we appreciate him precisely because he's so misanthropic :)

Mind you, I'm sort of comforted by the thought that I'll never sit next to him on a bus or a train. And I'll bet he flies business class, so no danger there, either.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 9:17:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

"Logic, not by pretending are or you know someone who was once given a good feed by the dept of transport of some obscure metropolis or by reading dog eared proipaganda of the travel pamphlets."

I have spent adequate time in Zúrich, Basel, Hong Kong and the San Sebastián region in Spain to know how well these systems work. In fact I worked for three years in Zúrich as an engineer (with a Degree) with a company which makes equipment for these systems. I do know how they work. Your facile assumptions show how crude is the basis for your arguments.

I also run a business. A real business supplying real goods and services to industrial users. So don't lecture me on socialism.

The Melbourne Public Transport system is now in private hands. Strange how some of the worst systems seem to be in private ownership. But in your superficial judgement this cannot be.

I do not know where yor professional skills lie but I suspect they are not in areas like engineering or medicine where it is necessary to achieve measurable results.

I think with your bombastic, insulting style you are trying to emulate Oscar Wilde, but unfortunately you lack the coherency, the language skills, the humour or sense of irony and, above all the talent.
Posted by logic, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 9:38:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PKs little hissing fit does not merit direct comment.

CJMorgan –hyenas attack in packs, I see you have come in to join the fray. If I throw you a bone will you scuttle away?

Logic “in Zúrich as an engineer (with a Degree) with a company which
makes equipment for these systems. I do know how they work.”

So you are here admitting, your views are influenced by your personal vested interest.

“Melbourne Public Transport system is now in private hands.”

But the culture is the same, only the shareholding has changed, not the morons who run it and have their snouts in the public trough.

“I also run a business. A real business supplying real goods and services to industrial users.”

Oh how nice for you. Do your “industrial users” include “Public
Transport” companies?

If they do, you are a hypocrite to come here, criticize me for expressing an anti-public transport view whilst your livelihood is tied to the continuance of a profligate public transport system.

My skills are in an area devoted to very “measured” results.

What you think of me is irrelevant. It is merely the bleating whimpers of the impotent.

So get off your high horse and realize this, I get to vote as you get to vote.

Whilst we are on the subject of voting, everyone should remember

BRACKS & CO LIED ABOUT THE SCORESBY “FREEWAY” AND COST THE STATE $400
million in FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS IN THE PROCESS – and for what to pay back his union masters by maliciously depriving the Eastern Suburbs of the same sort of freeway which girths the western suburbs (Western Ring Road).

VOTE AGAINST THE LABOR PARTY AND THEIR UNION BOSS CORRUPTION
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 2 November 2006 12:57:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

Every time you write you look more foolish.

My business does not involve selling equipment to any public transport company. My livelihood is NOT IN ANYWAY tied to the continuance of a public transport system NOR EVER HAS BEEN.

The fact that I worked for a manufacturer of railway equipment at one stage does not make me influenced by vested interest. Would you dismiss the views of a doctor because he has a vested interest in health? Of course not, unless you are an idiot. It is called PROFESSIONAL ETHICS. It comes with responsibility and concern for others.

If your skills are in an area devoted to very “measured” results please let us all know what they are.

If the public transport is run by "morons" what does that say for the private management that is in charge. After all National Express was a complete failure.

When it comes to the elections perhaps Bracks made a mistake about the Scoresby Motor Way and decided that the replacement of schools and hospitals closed by the Kennett Government was more important.

No doubt your education was financed by either your parents or was free and you will now deny that to others.
Posted by logic, Thursday, 2 November 2006 1:53:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic “My business does not involve selling equipment to any public transport company.”

How nice for you – So, you spent an inordinate amount of time supposedly developing a skill and knowledge base in public transport networks which you now claim and flaunt here, yet have no ongoing or residual commercial interest from it? I find that hard to believe – did the stench of public monopoly cronyism get too much for you or were you just “not one of the gang”?

National Express. The point is when a private company fails, it is not a general burden on the tax payer but to the venturers who undertook the “risk”. When public owned transport utility fail, the tax payer is the first to be stiffed with the bills of keeping it afloat and then for making sure the morons who created the mess are kept in what becomes a sheltered workshop for incompetents.

“No doubt your education was financed by either your parents or was free and you will now deny that to others.”

Looking for more goading points, it will not work. Do some reading, you claim to have studied, experienced and have experience in the public transports networks of the world, yet strangely have no ongoing or residual interest from that knowledge ---mmmm.

As for “Every time you write you look more foolish.”

Your opinion is irrelevant to my views. You just cannot tolerate dissent.

Whilst my business is involved in provision of the qualities of reason and measurement, I learned a long time ago, as far as an influence on the vast majority of people, a ton of logic weighs the same as an ounce of emotion.

On any scale, you, by name, are just a “light weight”. Better wear heavy boots or you will float away (to presumably settle in another public transport system somewhere).
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 3 November 2006 7:24:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My 'little hissing fit', Col? I think most other readers would describe my series of posts to you as getting to the nub of what a future eater and an unreconstructed, selfish, thatcherite tory you are, let alone what a belligerent bully you are here on OLO. Far from a fit, I was having an amused dig at your prejudices and the poverty of your position on this thread. So bereft are you of any shred of plausible self-justification that you are reduced to trying to glibly dismiss your opponents.

A tip, Col. Sometimes on OLO it might be wise to quit while you are behind. You just have to control your hubris - difficult, I know, after all these years. But something that you must do to try to rebuild any credibility.
Posted by PK, Friday, 3 November 2006 7:29:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey guys, someone just pointed out this little argument to me. I don't think it's bad enough to start suspending anyone or deleting comments, but if I were new to OLO there's no way I'd want to comment on this thread, which would be a pity.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 3 November 2006 10:49:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK I have read most (but not all) comments. I agree mostly with PK, Bobalot, and Logic on this one.
Without an environment there will be neither society nor individuals. I am sorry for future generations that they have to put up with all the mess that we created in the past few hundred years. The least we can do is to give the future generation a bit of a leg-up.
And largely improving public transport IS a way to reduce Greenhouse gases.

The most important thing is that we need to learn how to find a balance between looking after the planet and meeting needs and demands of people.
A carbon tax might work if there are viable alternatives being offered at the same time.
At this stage, given the trouble the environment is in, I think that it is reasonable to expect people and industries to pay for the privilege of destroying our planet but this should be balanced by rewarding more green energy users.

However, taxes should be based not just on CO2 as there are other pollutants contributing to Global warming as well, for example, NOx which is a car exhaust emission.

If taxes on vehicles itself would be banned but only charged according to their emissions, people and industries will be motivated to make the green choice and buy cars that are low in producing toxic emissions. There will be much more demand for cleaner options.

Largely improving public transport and making it more attractive is a must if the Govt is serious about reducing emissions.
Not only services, timetables etc can be improved, but to make public transport more attractive we need to attend do people's needs. For example, for people with laptops there should be facilities to use free or very low-cost, fast internet while traveling by train.

There could be a ‘business wagon’ for people with laptops and more space- this would be much more preferable for people going to work than being stuck in traffic jams.
A wagon designed to stall bikes?

All it takes is willingness and money ;+)
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 3 November 2006 12:11:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY implies that he would not contribute to the debate on this thread presumably because the tone of some of the argument is a bit tough. Well, Graham, by posting you may be able to simultaneously raise the tone and shed some light on the matter at hand. So, post away. We are not going to come around to your house, drag you out and hang draw and quarter you just for posting your views. Well, Col Rouge might try. But we'll protect you.
Posted by PK, Friday, 3 November 2006 1:06:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia I would welcome improvement in public transport.

However, personal the experience of public transport is, they spend heaps and the service is lucky to remain the same. I cite the very fast train experience of Victoria, which, after having millions of dollars thrown at it, isn’t (very fast at all).

I do not believe we should encourage subsidized transport at all. If a “commercial undertaking” (and provision of a transport network is, after all, supposed to be a commercial undertaking, since it is supposed to charge users a fee) cannot support itself and pass the tests of economic probity which is applied equally to other enterprises, it is not worthy of support. It fails and should be stopped.

As for looking after the planet and the needs of people, again, the “needs of people” are automatically reduced if we reduce the numbers of people. Population control is central to any debate about.
As I wrote previously “Third world breeders with more than 2 children are “future eaters”.”

One of the problems I have with a carbon tax is the practical mechanics of measuring it.

Some scientific calculation is put up, a bit like “flavour of the month” or “this week butter bad, margarine good” and everyone rushes off and supports it and creates a “carbon trading credits scheme” which is used to do what? – regulate economic growth and facilitate cross-border transfer of wealth?
The biggest problem with “carbon trading” is – measuring what is being credited. The ability for accuracy (bearing in mind we are dealing in trillions of dollars) is critical and we have no idea of how to measure it (re NZ cattle).

A simple fact, cannot measure it, cannot manage it. The Carbon Credit system is one which has emotional pull, in that it is seen to address a problem but lacks what is demanded of taxes, prices and charges, being an objective and accurately measurable basis.

The Kyoto problem is one too of a system which, as Mr Howard correctly pointed out, shackles our economy whilst facilitating the growth of our (commerical) competitors.

http://reg.org.au/REG%20HOME.htm
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 4 November 2006 6:41:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PK, it's hard enough being mine host without getting into too many of the conversations. And when I do, and am then called on to adjudicate, someone is sure to suggest I'm biased. So, you'll have to do without my input, although, when all's said and done, I favour the bike as the best form of transport for most trips.
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 4 November 2006 10:19:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Graham Y - see you on the cycle path sometime. Col Rouge, your last post started to sound almost reasonable - you don't like carbon taxes or the Kyoto agreement - views that are looking increasingly out of step with responsible opinion. So, what are your solutions to global warming? Surely not the nuclear bandwagon, as Howard and others are promoting.
Posted by PK, Sunday, 5 November 2006 8:14:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GY
Yes, bikes are best for short distance trips.
Improving cycle paths and extending facilities to stall bikes at stations and other public places like shopping centres, work places at very low cost or no charge is necessary to entice people to hop on their bikes and leave the car at home.
The reason my children are not cycling to school is a safety reason. I am sure that many more children would be able to ride their bikes to school if there were safe cycle ways.

Also, when erecting new suburbs or workplace buildings, a good infrastructure and lay-out should be a focal point: can people get around on their bikes safely and are people encouraged to walk?
Perhaps there can be a well-coordinated local bus that takes people to and from the train station on work days.

Col
There will be objections to every plan to reduce greenhouse gases, but ‘something’ needs to be done.

“I cite the very fast train experience of Victoria, which, after having millions of dollars thrown at it, isn’t (very fast at all).”
The Labor government had to reestablish the rail system that the Libs had demolished. The Libs sold off Victoria's public assets. While they haven't done as effective a job as I would like, they are at least trying to undo a lot of damage the Kennett government did. Besides - investment into the VFT will continue and it will become a vital link for the regional areas.

I do agree that improving the public transport system won’t be an easy task, but I’m not convinced that it can’t be done.

Largely improving public transport will be an improvement for the environment- how can it not be?
Public transport should be a public investment just like we pay collectively for Fire brigades, police services, residential street lighting etc.

“I do not believe we should encourage subsidized transport at all...”
In other words, if we can’t make a profit out of it, don’t do it?

Continued
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 6 November 2006 11:21:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Population control is central to any debate about.”
I do agree that people shouldn’t be breeding like rabbits, but population levels need to stay fairly level and are just a part of sustainable living. It would be good if all babies could be wanted babies.
There are still far tot many unwanted pregnancies and this is unnecessary.
It’s not only the parents’ oblication but the govt’s responsibility as well to educate young teenagers about sex and reproduction, and to make contraception freely and readily available.
The money the govt is now spending on counselling of pregnant women would be better spend on handing out free contraception and improving sex education in schools INCLUDING the religious schools.

“The Kyoto problem is one too of a system which, as Mr Howard correctly pointed out, shackles our economy whilst facilitating the growth of our (commerical) competitors.”
The Kyoto is far from ‘shackling’, it is a joint effort by countries to work together towards sustainable living. Cooperation and compromise are words that are probably not included in Howard’s dictionary.

Col, what I am trying to say is that improving public transport is just a small part of a large equation. We need to use every opportunity and means to create a pollution free future.
Just because there is no perfect solution is no reason not to try at all.

Like PK I was going to ask you what you think would be a viable solution (apart from the market driven ones- which are rarely for the long term good).
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 6 November 2006 11:27:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My thoughts:
* Using public transport can be seen as creating positive externalities for private transport users, rather than a cost "through public subsidies". For example, every time I catch the bus, I'm taking one car and its associated pollution and traffic jamming capabilities off the road for someone else to enjoy.
* Public transport is tricky - where I am at the moment, it is a twenty-minute walk to the bus, and then when I get there, the buses are 55 minutes apart, which makes life difficult. So I often drive. If the buses were, say, 20 minutes apart and there was adequete seating and shelter at the bus stop, I would use PT much more often.
* We need to recognise that PT is not a solution for many people - trying to drop children at school & activities, and do the grocieries, is not really possible on public transport. But that dosn't mean it shouldn't exist.
* The 'park and ride' idea in Melbourne's east, where there is a large free car park near the Eastern Freeway, where several buses pull in is the best idea I've seen to bridge the need for a car after work and the frustration of driving in the city - there should be more of these options.
* Railway stations should have oodles of parking - big multistory carparks, that only require you to put your validated rail ticket in at the end of the day to exit for free. I avoid using rail because its not the close enough to walk/ride, and when I drive there, I cannot park anywhere
Posted by Laurie, Monday, 6 November 2006 12:28:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia

“The Libs sold off Victoria's public assets”

Jeff Kennett had to sell off a lot of things simply to dig the state of Victoria out of the hole the Cain / Kirner had dug us into. I remember the fuel levy because that fool, Jolly promised to underwrite the collapse of Pyramid. I also recall the $3 billion loss the Victorian government incurred through its incompetent excursion with Tri-Continental. $1000 for every man woman and child in the state, up in smoke because of socialist incompetence.

Public Assets, government is not vested with the competency to run a railway or transport company. I see no “public benefit” from running anything at a commercial loss and then forcing tax payers to carry that loss in increased taxes.

“There will be objections to every plan to reduce greenhouse gases, but ‘something’ needs to be done.”

The increasing cost of oil will be one thing which does take care of it. By shifting the base cost of oil, the viability of “real alternatives” immediately improves.

The topic of greenhouse gases and global warming have not be resolved. I recall doomsayers of the past who predicted the collapse of the Industrial age in the nineteenth century and those who said we would all be out of work because of developments in automation in the 1970s and of course, the “Paperless Office”.

Today’s "flavour" is "climate change and global warming", a nicely packaged bundle of nonsense designed to scare the bejeebers out of the gullible and ensure a few scientists and visiting “experts” have a first class seat on the gravy train.

Have you seen the sunspot correlation chart?

I would seek it out and ask yourself, if it is true, nothing we can do will influence “global warming” regardless of every intention.

“Police, Fire Brigade and Street lighting” are all public safety issues, public transport is not, some would say it is the opposite.

As tax payers we are the investors in public transport and "government" does not have “authority” to run any business at a loss with our taxes.

http://reg.org.au/REG%20HOME.htm
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 6 November 2006 5:48:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, I haven't read you on global warming before however it comes as no surprise to find that you are a sceptic. There is a huge correlation between GW scepticism and those who are politically conservative and believe in free market economics. There are plenty of discussion forums covering the doubters, who cite 'poor science' (the science is pretty good and not credibly challenged) 'it's a natural cycle' (the only other times when there was equivalent global warming, it was catastrophic for life on earth), 'the jury is out' (it's not - overwhelming consensus among climatologists and other scientists, the sceptics are politcians, journalists, economists and other conservatives).

Your 'sun spot' theory is a new one to me, Col. Yeah, and the sun will turn into a black dwarf in 200 million years or so. So nothing cam or should be done about GW, right?

More and more politicians and business leaders have come to the realisation that GW is reaal and happening much faster than previously though, that it will be catastrophic if left unchecked. These are responsible people not prone to being swept up in panics or flavours of the moment.

Think again, Col.
Posted by PK, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 11:52:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Railway stations should have oodles of parking - big multistory car parks, that only require you to put your validated rail ticket in at the end of the day to exit for free. “
Laurie, I am all for this excellent idea.
A multistory car park at every station that includes a safe section to park bikes is a must if we want to get people use the railway system.

Col,
Selling off public assets is never a good idea because it doesn’t benefit the taxpayers. Col, face it- both Labor and Liberals are promising to buy back the regional rail system at the up coming election! That just proves it should never have been sold in the first place!

Imagine that public schools, public toilets, public hospitals would be sold off as well- who says that they won’t end up in some off-shore company’s hands? Evens scarier would be a privatised police corp.

Australian assets should be kept in Australia. It’s the government’s responsibility to do the right thing with OUR taxpayers’ money and look after our assets. Why sell your house to pay the mortgage? It’s bad economic management- it’s false economy.
What does Victoria have left?

“…up in smoke because of socialist incompetence”
No, because of corporate greed which the government tried to ineptly rectify. Like Howard did when his brother’s company went belly up. Libs are no better than Labor- at least Labor ‘attempts’ equity, whereas the Libs just favour the wealthy and big business.

I do agree that at first, improving the railway system will take long and cost too much, don’t forget the system hasn’t been maintained; but when it is completed and kept well maintained it will eventually be an essential alternative for transport in our oil-needy times.
The fast rail system need not have been so expensive if the Kennett govt. had been prevented from its privatization rampage in the first place.

continued
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 12:42:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn’t one of the reasons we have a government: so, services can be provided that capitalism alone cannot provide in a fair and equitable manner?

Otherwise, why have a democracy- the alternative is a form of feudalism where the poor provide services for a tiny minority of rich.
We pay taxes for services, why should essential services be controlled by profit motivation- it’s simply corrupt and ultimately inefficient.

“Have you seen the sunspot correlation chart? … if it is true, nothing we can do will influence “global warming” regardless of every intention. “
I’ve heard about it. Is the sunspot thing a good reason to continue to pollute, use all the world’s resources, exploit third world countries…simply because ‘global warming’ may not be true?
There is nothing to lose by being cleaner if it doesn’t prove to be true, and much to gain, namely a cleaner environment and an improved rail system, whether it turns out to be true or not.
Even if the environment wouldn’t be an issue, we know that we will run out of oil some time in the future.

“…nothing we can do will influence “global warming” regardless of every intention”. A pathetic excuse eagerly snapped up by the Rich to continue with exploitation and pollution.

“…and Street lighting are public safety issues- public transport is not, some would say it is the opposite.”
Yeah one can feel really safe on public transport since they sacked a lot of the rail staff.

One more thing about third world future eaters:
In third world countries, where women are given the opportunity for education and self determination (control over their fertility & ownership of land, business etc) they always reduce the number of children they have – that’s what independent, educated women always do when they have freedom of choice and equal opportunity. Hardly ‘future eaters’. The real ‘future eaters’ are those who think that because they are financially secure and are ‘alright Jack’ they don’t have to do anything about social equity and sustainable living – except to criticise others less well off than themselves.
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 12:49:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
col rouge continues to avoid disclosing his professional experience and pretending he knows more than the rest of us.

Let's have a guessing game - what does Col actually do?

I suggest he is an out of work comedian who should have stuck to his day job.

What are your suggestions?
Posted by logic, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 8:59:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col_Rouge there is considerable debate about whether the Cain_Kirner government was driving Victoria into bankruptcy. People are questioning why there was no outcry about the Liberal opposition throttling supply. Definitely some of the state government departments had restructured to improve their efficiency.

For example the State Electricity Commission employed a third the number of employees in 1992 than it had in 1988. Privatisation of this asset has cost Victorian society the following - 1000 less apprentices trained each year, no planning for future electricity demand, increased brownouts when electrity was spot sold in Dec 2000, no jobs in LaTrobe Valley leading to fall in house prices from $120,000 to $30,000

Privatisation of MMBW meant that no accumulated knowledge of Melbourne's geology was used in construction of the tunnel. All the retrenched MMBW engineers had dispersed. Actually Transurban was a skip-free zone, south african and canadian engineers and kiwi labourers. Do we still pump 1 million litres of drinking water into the Burnley Tunnel each day?

Rail enthusiasts note that the cost of rail construction is borne solely by rail users but the cost of freeway construction is borne by local councils, state and federal governments - very rarely do users pay for the roads they use. So in Col Rouge's user pays utopia bring on the Scoresby Freeway toll road.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 9 November 2006 7:49:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Selling public assets – with most of them being bought by aussie institutions, they remain in the private hands of the public, through their superannuation and mutual funds.

When the once public entity needs to expand or recapitalise, it can do so under the strict conditions of an arms length relationship and documented proposal with the investor, instead of just stiffing the tax payer who gets no opportunity or input to scrutinise the quality of the decisions behind what his taxes are being spent on.

I said before, public transport is not a public safety issue and comparison to police or hospitals etc. is stupid.
Public transport is not comparable to schooling either.

“capitalism alone cannot provide in a fair and equitable manner?”

The provision of commercial services by government is not intended to be “fair and equitable” it is an issue of political philosophy, should the state provide sheltered workshops or should people be self reliant.

I have and always will be for self reliance, it is the best way for people to develop, with dignity, instead of scurrying around looking for a nanny state to wipe their butts.

“In third world countries, where women..” making this a self-righteous gender issue is not going to help.

“The real ‘future eaters’..”

The company I founded produces products which reduce waste in the food industry. My personal efforts (in developing these products) has resulted in significant improvements in efficiency and waste reduction.
You suggest I am a “future eater” I would say -
my contribution to the “future”, when considering the waste which I help others avoid, is significantly better than someone who comes here to mince around, pretending to be concerned with the “future” but simply criticises others out of gross ignorance and spite.

I am a “future feeder”. From your posts I would judge you do not a clue about how to innovate, develop or effectively contribute to anything, just like all indolent and precocious lefties who are driven by envy and small mindedness.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 9 November 2006 5:31:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Previous post should be to Celivia

Billie “Col_Rouge there is considerable debate about whether the Cain_Kirner government was driving Victoria into bankruptcy.”

Really – who is debating it?

As a point of interest now, as we go to the next state election is the perfect time to remind everyone of how the State Bank of Victoria was sold to CBA to cover the deficit which Kirner/Jolly’s incompetence produced.

I recall the comments of the day – “What is the capital of Victoria?”

About 50 cents

Kirner and Co, with the aid of the Federal Government of the day, turned Victoria into the “Rust Bucket State”.

MMWB, you are completely wrong about the “tunnel”, it was built by Transfield, a company staffed extensively by ex MMBW employees. They cut their teeth (so to speak), on the western sewer project between the City and Hoppers Crossing / Werribee and then moved on to the City Link Project.

Regarding Rail versus cars, whilst public transport receives grants from government, it cannot be said, by definition, that users pay for all capital improvements. Funding for capital in “real businesses” is provided by sale of part of the ownership, taking on interest bearing debt, debenture, bank loans etc. or by retained earnings. Public transport operaters are so incompetent, they do not generate earnings, let alone “retain” them.

The amount of fuel excise and taxes which motorists pay significantly exceeds the amount paid on road construction and maintenance.

Billie, your sources are suspect, to say the least.

I would further suggest you go visit http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/7B140AC973D91D89CA2570D90016ADB6/$File/Corporate+Plan+Low+Res.pdf

Check out who produces the green house gas emissions and how the performance of cars has improved their emissions qualities over time.

I was actually looking for a little known fact, that of

How much dividend the state government is stripping from the metropolitan water companies to put into general funds, instead of putting it into water infrastructure, which all the metropolitan users have been paying for. It was running in the hundred of millions per year a few years ago.

Remember the Scoreby Freeway which, thanks to Bracks isn't
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 9 November 2006 5:35:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

At least we now know that you founded a company. I have founded a business too. It markets control gear for industry. For your efforts in forming a company I respect you as I would expect you to respect me. Then why your superior attitude?

And your language is so coloured. For example.

"The provision of commercial services by government is not intended to be “fair and equitable” it is an issue of political philosophy, should the state provide sheltered workshops or should people be self reliant. "

Your use of the highly coloured term sheltered workshop expresses your view that a state enterprise is less effective than a private one. For your information I first heard that term when I was working with a private company. I have worked in both state and private enterprises and the difference is largely one of scale. Large private companies are like government ones. Once the shareholding is with finance and super funds middle management acts only in it's own interest and the upper management is unable to understand what middle management or the shop floor are doing. Particularly when directors are mainly from the finance sector and haven't a clue how the company really works.

And much of what we use and buy can only be provided by large enterprises. Some public businesses such as the Swiss or French railways in my extensive experience produce a product vastly superior than that their private eqivalents. There is no clear rule and this you would realise if you were more objective and less ideological in your thinking.

When it comes to public transport it is clear from Australian and US experience that the public do not act in an environmentally favourable way. You are fond of choice, what if the environment fails? What choice would individuals have if their home is flooded by rising sea levels? Your like me have experience in business but I am sensible enough to value the opinion of those with experience in the study and observations on climate. Perhaps that comes from my engineering background.
Posted by logic, Thursday, 9 November 2006 8:18:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Logic in his previous post. Not just targetting Col Rouge on this, but the debate on this site would be better if we could step back from ideology and discuss each issue on its merits. That shouldn't be too much to ask for
Posted by PK, Friday, 10 November 2006 8:29:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,
I want to start by saying that it’s a credit to you that you have found a solution to reduce waste. Not everybody is able to make such big contribution. (What kind of waste does it reduce, I am genuinely interested).
But the fact that you were successful in finding a solution to an environmental problem doesn’t mean that other people cannot express their concerns and opinions about the environment, or that you can ignore the fact that cars are pollutive.

I think that we all care about the environment but have different angles of looking at things and solutions. We all have the best intentions though, and I am not so stuck in my opinions that I don’t have space for other points of view.
But for me, the most important thing should be to save the environment and not to fatten up private corporations.

In my opinion it would be a great contribution to our environment if we would support a well-functional, low-cost rail system that we all can enjoy not only because it will reduce car emissions but also because of the oil shortage problem which will only become bigger the more oil we use..

Logic makes this comment: “You are fond of choice, what if the environment fails?”
Think about it, Col, we simply need to do something or else our future generation will be stuck with an environment that is beyond repair. How much choice will our kids and grandkids have?
Is it really so bad to travel around, whenever we can, by good, much improved, public transport instead of by car if we take into account the burden we take off our kids and grandkids? Imagine having a great rail system ready and waiting for them. http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1940383,00.html

What is good about keeping all these cars on the roads- and the number of cars is always increasing as well.

continued
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 10 November 2006 2:42:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From ABS:
“Since the 1950s the number of private cars has risen dramatically, and continues to do so. In 2003 there were 10.4 million registered cars and station wagons... This dramatic rise in private car ownership has been accompanied by a corresponding shift away from the use of urban public transport.”
Does this not worry you, knowing that the average Australian car emits 4 to 5 tonnes of CO2 per year?

OK I know that you are not in favour of Public Transport, I suppose I’ll have to accept that; but how do you suggest we get emissions down?
The fact that you have done a great job in the waste sector doesn’t mean you should not worry about other aspects of environmental calamities.
How do you feel about the idea of not taxing cars as they are taxed today but taxing vehicles according to their emissions so that people who ‘must’ drive a car are being rewarded for choosing a greener car- one that is low in producing toxic emissions?

“who are driven by envy and small mindedness."- what does 'envy and small mindedness' have to do with creating a sustainable future?
My inquiring minds wants to know!

“Public transport is not comparable to schooling either. “
The point I was trying to make is that Public Transport should be a service provided by the government to the general public, just like the other services; why would the govt only have to provide services that have to do with safety?
If I had to, I could reason and ask you whether a great functioning, very low-cost rail system would attract many more people, leading to less traffic on the roads, leading to less (fatal) car accidents, meaning less pollution, less smog, leading to a cleaner environment and healthier people.
We then have a safer environment and Public Transport would be a safety issue and reason for the govt to be involved with public transport.

The final fact that tin-pot uber-capitalists conveniently overlook is that it is the ENVIRONMENT which sustains humanity NOT the ECONOMY!
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 10 November 2006 2:44:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia

Well said. You have picked the hole in the economic rationalist view of the world.
Posted by logic, Friday, 10 November 2006 5:30:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic, I mentioned what I do to context the stupid and derogatory name calling which Celevia (and PK) indulged in by calling me a “future eater”. It had nothing to do with engendering “respect”, which neither you or I merit from simply founding a company.

The way I write is part conditioned by 350 word limit. That you find it “coloured” is your problem to deal with.
Imagine me writing in a peak cap if that helps you balance the text to your presumptuous and preposterous expectation.

“in my extensive experience”, I can only assume your view is “coloured” by an ideological posture reinforced by your need for pretentious and pompous self appointment to “expert”.

It is inconsistent with my “user experience” of public transport.

As for “public do not act in an environmentally favourable” , that would be the same “public” who elect the politicians to employ the bureaucrats to “SERVE”.

It is not the public who elect the politicians to ask the bureaucrats and “experts” what we should be allowed to do.

Celivia The waste avoided is through improvements in control of the commercial production cycle of food goods. One major sponsor is an industry association.

“Does this not worry you, knowing that the average Australian car emits 4 to 5 tonnes of CO2 per year?”

How much do the trucks which freight the goods which you then buy from your local supermarket pump out on your behalf?

How much is pumped by you breathing (a considerable amount if “producing nothing but hot air” is anything to go by).

Have you considered how much CO2 is absorbed by trees?

Does it worry me ? No , because in the context of the benefit derived from using my car, like earning a living, public transport will never get me where I need to be either efficiently or effectively.

(don’t bother trying to hang an emotional guilt trips on me Celivia, I was once married to a narcissist, so I have heard them all, seen them all and you are but an amateur)

continued
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 11 November 2006 11:05:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont.

“environment that is beyond repair.” That will happen if the breeders keep on breeding,
Stop the erosion of the worlds rain forests and other resources by capping the unsustainable population growth of the least able, rather than pretending you will do anything by presuming moral indignation and criticism of the needs of the more able.

Re “envy and small mindedness” I could be referring to your comments

“A pathetic excuse eagerly snapped up by the Rich” – has all the rancour of small minded envy.

Or “Yeah one can feel really safe on public transport since they sacked a lot of the rail staff.”

Or maybe “The real ‘future eaters’ .. are financially secure .. ‘alright Jack’ they don’t have to do anything about social equity and sustainable living.”

Oh how green is your envy Celevia!

And as for “financially secure” that is a state of mind, I have remortgaged my house to fund my business, I take the risks. If it fails because I miss an appointment when I was waiting for a tram which did not arrive, I lose my house.

And you have the audacity to pretend you think you know enough about me to call me a “Future eater”?

You may “choose” not to drive in a car but you cannot presume to tell me what I “must” do. Certainly, not until you are prepared to pay the full economic and un-subsidised fare on public transport (ie without it being subsidised by me) otherwise it is akin to “biting the hand which feeds you”.

“ENVIRONMENT which sustains humanity NOT the ECONOMY!”

ECONOMY - “the disposition or regulation of the parts or functions of any organic whole; an organized system or method.”
ECONOMICS – “the branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management “

if you knew anything before commenting it should be “Economy” embraces the “Management of the Environment”

Rather than something to be juxtaposed against it for cheap political point scoring.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 11 November 2006 11:09:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col et al. This is a warning. If the debate continues like this I will suspend someone. It's getting more and more abusive. There are some good points here, but they're obscured by the name-calling.
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 11 November 2006 11:45:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you GrahamY.

To get back to Alan Moran's article my problem with it is as follows.

It only considers cost as though that was all that matters. It shows little concern for the environment or for the social needs of those who are unable to drive.

In estimating the cost of cars he does not seem to give a figure to the incidental costs such as policing, accidents or environmental damage.

These factors cannot be dismissed or ignored. If the true cost of running a car were paid by the users I wonder if cars would be as popular as they are. While cars are needed for many journeys there are others that could be met by public transport. Also public activities such as offices, cinemas etc. could all be located near public transport.

It is interesting that Alan ignores European and Asian experiences. The world does not stop at the boundaries of the English language.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 11 November 2006 9:44:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent post, Logic.
Cost, indeed, is only a small part of the equation. This is so obvious that I don’t understand that factors apart from cost are being deliberately ignored.

Col,
“…calling me a “future eater”.
YOU were the one who called the Third World people ‘future feeders’. These people are the most vulnerable ones and have NO OPTIONS unlike people from developed countries. We have a responsibility to fix what we have exploited.

Aren’t we ALL future eaters to a certain extend? The comment about future eaters was not just directed at you but at all people who oppose the idea of using the greener options we have or are able to create!
You point out that trucks are a problem, too- which is all the more reason for striving for cleaner fuels for cars as well as trucks.

“How much is pumped by you breathing…“
I won’t hold my breath till someone comes up with a greener breathing method:)

“…public transport will never get me where I need to be...“
The whole point is to improve public transport to such an extend that public transport WILL take you to where you want to be effectively.
Is your car a hybrid? It sounds like you just want to continue your lifestyle at the expense of everyone else.

“I was once married to a narcissist, …”
How unfortunate for you that you made such a mistake by marrying a narcissist, but what has this to do with arguing against working towards a sustainable environment?

““environment beyond repair.” That will happen if the breeders keep on breeding,”
…and if polluters keep on polluting. Industries and traffic are two of the biggest polluters. People and governments of developed countries have options. Third world people (breeders) don’t have the options that we have.
There are families in Australia too that have more than 2 kids. The govt. even encouraged people to have more than two children to sustain the population.

Cleaner cars and public transport are crucial in reducing greenhouse gases. Again, what do you think about taxing cars according to emission levels?-continued
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 12 November 2006 3:58:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“...capping the unsustainable population growth of the least able”
How? To help them become more ‘able’?
Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to solve the problems in developing countries. “Rich countries have focused on ways to reduce carbon emissions but have largely ignored helping poor nations cope with the consequences.” (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6126242.stm )

“Re “envy and small mindedness” I could be referring to your comments “
You failed to explain how arguing for a sustainable future is being envious and small minded. All you have done is showing everyone how threatened you are by others wanting a reasonable standard of living. Perhaps you would have to buy a hybrid car which won’t be as fast as your current car?

Col you are misunderstanding me: I don’t think there is anything wrong with wealth, just with a certain group of wealthy people who continue to consume and exploit the environment without producing and replacing despite alternative options.
They are the real future eaters- I have nothing against those wealthy people who do care.
Perhaps overseas holidays should be limited as aviation does huge damage.

What good will money be if the environment can no longer sustain us?

“...know enough about me to call me a “Future eater”?”
All I know is that you don’t want to give up anything because it’s so ‘convenient’; your only answer so far to a sustainable future is to cap population growth of the third world.

“…you cannot presume to tell me what I “must” do.”
I agree- we cannot tell people what they ‘must’ do; like telling people how many kids they ‘must’ not have.
We can simply discuss the best actions for the environment and we can look at the options.

“...pay the full...fare on public transport...”
We are all paying for roads- is it so unfair to all pay for PT as well?

I am just saying that public transport could be improved and that the use of cleaner fuels should be encouraged so that more people will choose to use it rather than keep polluting the air and using up oil supplies.
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 12 November 2006 4:09:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic Taxis and omnibuses provide an “alternative” for those who cannot drive.

Specific road policing for private vehicles is inseparable to the cost of commercial traffic, including coaches and buses. However, the benefit the community receives in vehicle and parking fines and other governmental imposts likely far outweighs the cost of policing.

Accident costs are covered under TAC and other insurance charges.

Environment: you cannot manage what you cannot measure, when you can quantify the environment cost, we can debate it, until then, your subjective hunch is likely to be entirely different to my subjective hunch.

Alan’s article was about Melbourne, not SE Asia as alluded to by the statistics etc.

And indicated by “maps of the accessibility of jobs in Melbourne by car and transit.”

Now,
“Some public businesses such as the Swiss or French railways in my extensive experience produce a product vastly superior”

I checked, the difference between Melbourne and the cities you named as your “extensive experience”
______________Area Sq Km ____Pop 000___ Pop 000/Sqkm
Zúrich__________92________ 1,293_______14
Basel___________37________ 186_________5
Hong Kong_______1,092_____ 7,116_______6.5
San Sebastián___61________ 183_________3

London__________1,560_____ 7,172_______4.5
New York________785_______ 8,143_______10

Melbourne_______8,806_____ 3,160_______0.3

Zurich, Basel San Sebastian, all follow the "small European City model" in terms of limited geographic spread with significantly lower populations and land area. I would suggest, no basis of “extensive experience” for comparative assessment of any transportation model for Melbourne.

Hong Kong is a closer comparative but with population density 18 times higher than Melbourne, it is not much use either.
My experience of London, with a population density 13 times that of Melbourne is closer than any of your “extensive experience”.

On that basis, my “amateur experience” should prevail.

If you want to make comparative assumption, I suggest you start with comparative models and not whimsy.

My point with public transport is, have it but it must pay its way, otherwise it is merely a drain on limited public funds. If it cannot fund itself commercially, it does not deserve to be a toy to pacify ill founded and discredited notions of socialists.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 12 November 2006 8:07:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celevia “YOU were the one who called the Third World people ‘future feeders’.”

And you assume that entitles you to call me names?

The whole “future eater” comment was initiated by PK, you just “climbed on the band wagon”, for reasons all your own.

Please resist trying to mitigate your own poor behaviour

“not directed at you but at all people who oppose the idea of using the greener options we have or are able to create!”

Yes it was directed at me. That is how you have chosen to “judge” me. A judgement I resent because it is based on your ignorance of me.
-
And it still does not excuse your use of derogatory snipes.

“Is your car a hybrid?”

is yours?

My next car will be a Bentley – my choice and paid for at my cost, but since I will be managing my business through telecommuting from my sea-change location,(a fabulous work model, which I have enjoyed, on occasions over the past 7 years) the use will be relatively low.

“and if polluters keep on polluting.”

If we were to tax cars on emissions, mine would be relatively low compared to someone driving a 20 year old bomb.

I repeat, if you want to make gratuitous and derogatory attacks on me, I will heed GY’s warning and trust to his vigilance.

As for enquiring mind – when you can explain your outbursts, which I quoted previously viz YOUR WORDS ““A pathetic excuse eagerly snapped up by the Rich”
and how you can claim they do not represent “envy”, I will respond, until then I will decline.

As for “Cleaner cars and public transport are crucial in reducing greenhouse gases.”
Efficient engines will reduce greenhouse gases, Trains and trams which do not deliver a cost effective service will not.

If you want me to go into more detail I will be happy to analyse any structured proposal you present (as I have done with Logics “city comparisons) but I will decline responding to the emotional and irrational cries for “socialist solidarity behind public transport”
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 12 November 2006 8:18:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

I lived in London for 5 years and made extensive use of public transport. I also have a reasonable aquaintence with Paris. I have travelled and worked in several lands and can converse in three other languages.

The Basel Zurich and San Sebastián areas involve low density surounding towns and cities between which people commute regularly. The total catchment areas in these places is similar in size to Melbourne. You need local knowledge to understand this.

Taxis are expensive. Omnibuses are public transport.

Insurance does not cover the full costs of emergency departments. Medicare takes a lot of that expense.

Just because you do not know how to quantify the costs of environmental damage does not mean you can ignore it.

Your off the cuff statement about over population belies the fact that it is the wealthier countries who produce the highest per capita greenhouse contribution.

You suggest that fines cover the cost of policing - this is just a wild guess.

I wouldn't touch a Bentley, they are not found to be that reliable or very rugged, they are just a snob thing. A small Japanese car would be a better proposition.
Posted by logic, Sunday, 12 November 2006 9:40:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article has infuriated me so much with its blatantly unsupported and ignorant claims that I've decided to deconstruct this piece in the faint hope that Alan Moran might see it.

First and foremost, I found it very interesting that Alan somehow figured out that despite the huge rise in the price of oil, and the effect that compounded inflation has had over 4 decades, the price of running a car has apparently remained unchanged. Well to put it simply, I disagree. I did some research into the matter. Freely available figures from a variety of Australian government websites have been put together into a very simple table.

NSW
Population 6000000
Number of Vehicles (619 per Capita) 3714000
Average number of KM's Driven (15000 per vehicle) 55,710,000,000
Cost to RTA per KM $0.05026
Cost to Commonwealth per KM $0.00296
Cost to Consumer per KM $0.75370
Total Cost to NSW Driver per KM $0.80692

The cost to the RTA is sourced from the NSW budget papers. The cost to the commonwealth is the total the commonwealth will spend on roads in the nation divided proportionately to the NSW population. The total cost to the consumer per km is taken from NRMA and RACV websites, assuming the popular Aussie Big 6's are used, with all major costs included.

As Alan has used US dollars in his figures, this represents a difference of 65 cents per km for car travel. What all of these figures ignore is opportunity cost of providing these roads (almost incalculable), and the inevitably soon to be implemented carbon tax (which should heavily increase the cost of car travel).

The other issue we have, is that in NSW, as someone that lives in the inner suburbs of Sydney, the cost of providing me with a road is far less than the cost of providing new roads to new developments, yet i pay the same registration costs, go figure.
Posted by ilya, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 1:24:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic “I have travelled and worked in several lands and can converse in three other languages.”
How absolutely lovely for you, but what has that to do with Melbourne Transport policy?

“The total catchment areas in these places is similar in size to Melbourne”
You are on the ropes and making that up. The population mass, geographic areas and population densities are all totally different. There is no basis for comparison.

Emergency departments deal with more than motor accidents,

motor accidents cost are covered by insurance and TAC.

“costs of environmental damage”

You are so “all knowing”, put up a suggestion

and I will shred it.

Social conditions vary according to the state of national development. If you want to live in a low impact society, go find a tree and enjoy your career as a below subsistence farmer. Certainly one benefit, you will not have access to the internet.

“fines cover the cost of policing, this is just a wild guess.”

http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/bc348d5912436a9cca256cfc0082d800/f13b019f32eecb48ca2571fe00046130!OpenDocument

“Mr Holding said Police budget now around $1,525,000”

http://www.fightfines.info/12.html - sourced from State Budget http://www.budget.vic.gov.au/CA256FE000059F74/0/8504417DADDE3614CA256FE90006AD0F?OpenDocument

Speeding fines, $343,495,000 (Victorian 2006 budget).

23% of the entire police budget is recouped in speeding fines alone. Policing in the state covers a lot more than just “traffic”

As a “wild guess” I reckon I am right and you are, once again proved a self appointed “EXPERT” who got it WRONG.

Private vehicle traffic as a cost to society is a net cash earner for government.

“I wouldn't touch a Bentley,… A small Japanese car would be a better proposition.”

Trust me, you will never see the inside of mine.

Along with your multiple languages and “expertise in everything” do you have a degree in arrogance?

The blind arrogance which entitles you to believe you can tell me what sort of car I am allowed to drive?

Let us be absolutely clear about this, you have no right to tell me or anyone else how we should deploy our own private resources.

Should I need advice, I will ask a real expert, not a self appointed one.

http://reg.org.au/REG%20HOME.htm
http://www.libertarian.org.au/
http://www.ldp.org.au/
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 8:39:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
col

"As a “wild guess” I reckon I am right and you are, once again proved a self appointed “EXPERT” who got it WRONG."
I remember a saying about a pot and kettle.

"You are so “all knowing”, put up a suggestion and I will shred it."
QED

“The total catchment areas in these places is similar in size to Melbourne” How do I know? I have been there and worked there. You have only looked up a map. Much of these smaller European conurbations contain a network of towns and villages connected by roads and railway networks. People live in one town and work in another.

"The blind arrogance which entitles you to believe you can tell me what sort of car I am allowed to drive?"
I never told you what car you were allowed to drive. I just gave an opinion on status cars. I don't frankly give a damn about your car.

"Social conditions vary according to the state of national development. If you want to live in a low impact society, go find a tree and enjoy your career as a below subsistence farmer. Certainly one benefit, you will not have access to the internet."
Please explain how this has any connection to anything I have written. Could you do it without insulting language. I am curious. I have looked at your response to other isues.

Well you said it.
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 7:51:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col
Remains the question: Why are both Labor and Liberal parties promising to buy back the rail system?

I’m still of the opinion that it’s a govt. responsibility to serve the taxpayers by providing a good rail system as a way to reduce pollution. We can no longer afford to exploit non-renewable sources, third world countries, decimate old wood forests, pollute our towns and cities and choke our waterways. You could also see it as a general health issue as well as an environment issue.

We can no longer continue ‘business as usual’ simply because we personally benefit.

You seem to focus only on your own convenience and have no long-term vision for your fellow human beings, not even for the wellbeing of your children and grandchildren- such is your obsession with your personal fortune.

Is population control your only answer to reducing car emissions?

“Let them eat cake” has been updated to: ”Let them drive cars”.

Logic
“Much of these smaller European conurbations contain a network of towns and villages connected by roads and railway networks. People live in one town and work in another.”
You’re RIGHT about that; it’s the same in The Netherlands. Many people live in one town/city and travel to another (e.g. from Amsterdam to The Hague). It’s one big network.
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 9:55:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia

I guess you are from the Netherlands. I remember travelling in that country it's a wonderful place and I like the people.

I think we have to ignore Col. It's not worth the effort. Let him indulge himself in his own self importance in his Bentley. I would hate to have to pay the repair bills.

Alan Moran is a bigger problem because some governments actually believe him. I tried in a conference to point out to him his mistakes and misconceptions as did others. He won't listen, he gets paid too well by telling rich and conservative people what they want to hear.
Posted by logic, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 7:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Logic

Yes, I am from the Netherlands (Amsterdam). I’m glad you had a good time there!

Indeed, it’s time to leave this debate- it's not much fun being right all the time ;+)

Interesting what you say about Moran. It appears that money can’t buy more brains.
Is Moran telling people that once more people have more money they will be able to look after the environment? I suppose until that day comes we can just keep on destroying it.

That, to some people, as we have seen, makes sense!
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 9:44:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some further thoughts, after spending the last week in Melbourne using trains and trams:

* PT should be subsidised because in choosing to subject myself to the often crowded and unpleasant conditions of public transport (other people's ipods too loud, body odour, having to stand for thirty minutes pushed up against random strangers) I am directly INCREASING the value of the experience of those who choose to drive by decreasing the traffic and pressure on the roads they are using.

* Consider the fifty people on an average tram in peak hour - if each of those people used a car to travel to work, think of the increase in traffic and travel times for all road users.

* Essentially, public transport users are increasing the pleasure road users are able to derive from their choice of transport.

* Thus, I feel public transport users should be rewarded for their choices which directly improve the outcomes for road users, through an increase in quality and availability of public transport - a few more cleaners, conducters, and security personel would go a long way towards improving the quality of experiance for PT users.
Posted by Laurie, Friday, 17 November 2006 11:55:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i note a few points that concern me:

1- In regard to the 'smelly fellow passenger' comments: what is wrong with interacting with your fellow species? do we really want a sterile life where we can interact with other humans through television, email, car radio etc? the biggest leaps in cultural/social/political (etc) advancement seem to come from individuals immersed in a culture (think of the scholars, artists and free thinkers of Athens, Rome and in more recent times London, New York (excuse my Westerners perspective)) whether that culture at times smells, confronts or delights.

2- The automobile as we know it is doomed. Our host earth cannot sustain this invention in its current form and our increasing use of it. i have recently heard people complain about last years 'ridiculous' petrol prices. I believe they are too cheap. We are scarring our planet irreversably, and hocking it off at a dollar or 2 a litre. Will we stand in stupified shock when an event of catastrophic and unpredicatable proportions leaves us to a forced cold turkey withdrawal from our automobile addiction? or act on the blindingly predictable before it is too late (the point may have already passed). It is NOT our right to drive where we want, we deserve no more than the two legs we were given... however we have extended ourselves a privilege that is being abused to the point of unsustainability. Maybe not now, or tommorow, but certainly within the next 100 years. What legacy will we leave?
Posted by craggers, Friday, 16 March 2007 11:08:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is an inherent wrongness, especially in cities as crowded as Sydney or Melbourne, that a person in their own metal box should be able to poison the air of another, to commandeer resources and space from another walking or riding a bicycle, simply because they feel better, or safer doing so.

Yes people perceive that they are safer in own security cells (clearly the writer has no grasp on road fatalities), but other people suffer serious lung damage from tiny metal shards released by those little boxes. With all the fuss about smoking, private vehicle pollution is a wrongness that we've long neglected to fix.
Posted by James P, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 1:00:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy