Why would anyone want to increase public transport, when its cost in dollars & fuel consumed is greater per passenger mile than the private vehicle.

City folk have strange ideas. You could increase public transport around here by a thousand percent, & you'd get more kids to school, but not one person to the shops. At least once I've driven 22Km I have access to the only reasonable public transport, trains.

I was unlucky enough to once travel from Brisbane city, by bus, to the southern bay side suburb, to catch a ferry to the bay islands. As a stranger, I assumed I'd traveled a long way when it over 90 minutes. Imagine my surprise when I drove it a couple of days later in 17 minutes. No wonder buses are so ridiculously expensive & unsuitable.

So never mind Bazz, even in the unlikely case that I am wrong, & we are reduced to those horrible little electric bubble cars, like an enclosed mobility scooter, we will still have mobility, unless the socialists/greenies get us.

Oh, & do remember, if we don't do the sensible thing & burn all that coal for electrical generation, it will be there just waiting for us to convert it to liquid transport fuel. The Germans damn near won a war running on liquid coal, I reckon we can do a better job of converting it today. We will have South Africa to advise us, they are using heaps of the stuff.

Hasbeen
When you turn all that coal into liquid transport fuel, you can kiss the atmosphere goodbye...

579,

Many developed economies have petrol prices above $2 without suffering economic collapse. Australia's petrol prices are actually quite low by international standards.

The key difference between petrol prices in Australia and overseas is tax. About a third of what we pay at the bowser is tax, whereas in most European countries it is more than half. The USA, Canada and Mexico have lower taxes and therefore lower retail prices than us, but in all other OECD countries, prices are higher.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=1020827&nodeId=b394b61872fa0cd3474ed9fc57d24388&fn=ACCC%20Petrol%20Monitoring%20Report%202011.pdf

see chart on page xliv

So it seems to me that we could stand higher petrol prices without economic collapse. An if it's really too much to tolerate, we could take a somewhat smaller slice of tax to keep petrol affordable.

We had similar predictions of disaster when the petrol price rose above $1. We din't like it, but we seem to have got used to it.

579;
I agree, watch what happens in the UK, they pay over $2 a litre and it has no effect
except to continue their smaller car trend. My bet is there would not be any change till
the price was about $3 a litre.
Hasbeen said;
public transport, when its cost in dollars & fuel consumed is greater per passenger mile
than the private vehicle.

Actually, no it is not, especially if you factor in the higher loads that would occur.
Hasbeen;
we are reduced to those horrible little electric bubble cars,

Huh ? You mean this ?
http://leaf.nissan.com.au/brochure/

I suggest you get a new pair of glasses.

Re the CTL plants, eg SASOIL yes a good way to go though it might be more efficient
to turn it into electricity, but as a transition fuel it could be a goer.
Linc Energy has a prototype plant running in Queensland where they burn the coal in situ
bring up the gas and turn it into very clean diesel. They will be building a fullscale
plant in South Australia.

579;
While we can look at higher prices from where we stand as individuals and say I could
pay that, unfortunately if it bites too hard on GDP the economy may not and it might
put you out of a job, or halve your pension.
Note the Greek troubles, all due to the peak in 2007-2008.

Sorry Bazz, but I read a report on those a couple of days ago, & a couple of Chinese even smaller electric things. The total emissions for the full life cycle, including manufacture & 100,000Km, was greater than lots of simpler modern hatches, both petrol & diesel.

I'm afraid that electric cars is a lot like wind power. Nice idea, heavily promoted, but a total failure when fully examined.

I have no great preference in transport. One of our main problems have been greenies with ridiculous requirements, & the safety lobby. Our cars have got so heavy & complicated, that they have emitted more by the time they leave the factory than an FJ Holden would in manufacture & a 150,000 miles, life cycle.

Not that emissions worry me, I'm all in favour of plant food, but emissions mean resource use, & I can see no reason to squander those, while we still need them.

I would be happy to see simple 2 seater cross between a go cart & a ride on mower, with weather protection for normal transport. Unfortunately the safety lobby, after a quid of course, would howl their heads off. I'd even accept an electric one, if the weight of batteries did not destroy the practicability of the thing.

When I bought my new 1962 sports car, [a Morgan +4] I had to have it weighed for registration. It was 14.4 hundred weight, [1612 pounds, 716Kg], in a couple of years it did not fall to bits, even at 124.6MPH down conrod straight Bathurst. It is still on the road with its fourth owner.

By comparison my wife's little Mazda 2 weighs in at over a ton [1059Kg] 46% heavier in fact, does not get near 124 MPH, but did have a bit fall off it recently. In it's favour, it does give better economy, but how much better would it be if it had 46% of it's weight knocked off it?

The energy intensity of the economy is has fallen steadily for decades, so rising energy prices are easier to accomodate than they once were. Risng prices will accelerate this trend.

http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_abares99010610/EnergyUpdate_2011_REPORT.pdf