"These matters aside, although free public transport would certainly attract more patronage, it would not attract as many as its advocates think. This can be tested by observing the transport choices of workers in the public transport industry, who already actually travel for free. The number of workers' cars parked at tram, train and bus terminals is testimony to the attractions of car travel even to people who are far from affluent and work within the industry itself."

Here in Perth we have a Central Area Transit(CAT) service that is free and an extended Free Transit Zone(FTZ) which covers East Perth,the CBD,Northbridge and West Perth which are so well patronised that the number of buses had to be almost doubled from 16 to 30 buses to cater for the increased patronage on the CAT service.On the FTZ services many workers intercommute between the various inner suburbs to go to work or pop into the city to do their shopping.

The quanta of public transport workers using their cars to get to or from work can be explained be thhre being no available public transport to get them to their destination early in the morning or late at night.As i can only speak for Perth. Perth is not yet a 24-hour city yet.

Economic puzzles will ultimately be knocked off the table by the "price" of oil energy. While the puzzle-masters are looking for the bits on the floor, she-who-must-be-obeyed (Mrs thermodynamics) will come with the Hoover. Look out! There is NO escape.

Do a course in physics - get a life.

It's only a choice if cars and public transport are comparable.

You can't compare an unreliable, poorly managed PT system with a road network which has been bolstered for decades with public money and influential industrial lobbying.

It is not an equal choice. People opt for cars because Victoria's public transport is notoriously bad and well below the benchmark of developed nations. This does not lead to the conclusion that it's useless to improve PT services.

I notice that Mr Moran is Director of the Deregulation Unit at a right-wing, economic-rationalist think tank. Ironic, since it's deregulation that's led to Victoria's circus of public-private partnerships which has private operators putting their hand out for public money each time they breach contract.

This article will appeal to those who believe the game of life is about consuming resources as fast as possible for fear that someone else will beat them to it. No-one else will be fooled.

This article is an absolute nonsense. Here in Sydney this type of thinking has lead to city-wide traffic congestion. From the Blue Mountains to Bondi, peak hour (or peak hours and hours) traffic is a shambolic mess. The touted solutions, such as the M7, Cross-City Tunnel etc alleviate some of the symptoms, but simply encourage more people to drive, exacerbating the problem. On the weekend it has taken me 25 minutes to drive 2.5 km from my house to the other side of Parramatta Road. So I avoid driving on the weekend, often catching a train into the city (excellent except for the interminable trackwork). Perhaps Mr. Moran would like to estimate the cost to the economy of all this lost time? He states that pumping money into public transport "will reduce the value of the city and jeopardise its future attractiveness as a living, working and leisure centre". OH OF COURSE! How stupid of me not to realize this.

Public transport workers are a poor example of free transport use.

People dont want 24hrs a day to be existing around trains/buses, they do it all day it is a pleasure to be able to drive at other times.

Free Transport would work, especially in this twilight period of oil.

Great Idea, as long as the 20-50km from the city transit suburbs have enough public transport infrastrucutre.

Realist, for once I hear where you're coming from when you mention the "twilight period of oil." Don't people understand that the issue of ever more expensive oil due to demand outstripping supply is here to stay and will only get worse. I believe that in the very near future, car travel will be completely unviable due to the cost of fuel. People with access to public transport will have no alternative but to use it. Society will have to reshape the way workplaces are set out, but those of us who dwell in out of the way places where the Kennet Government ripped up the tracks years ago will suffer greatly. No fuel = no job propects = no income and at a time when the Government hates the unemployed, so there will be no unemployment benefits either. What we badly need is more public transport, even if we have to pay to use it and especially in rural areas where at present our only option is to use the car. What we don't need is more road infrastructure which, as the article points out, leads to more private transport use. It makes me laugh when I see both Labor and Libral governments trying to attract more votes by promising bigger and better freeways. Very soon they'll sit idle and barely used as hugh monuments to the excesses of the bygone fossil fuel era. Wildcat.

Can't be bothered really thinking through this article, but the author's generous use of slightly dodgy sounding statistics has a real stink about it. I suspect this is a prime example of selected statistics meaning whatever you want them to mean. Reading the article you would get the impression that less people now work in the CBD than previously - which is completely wrong, the percentage is lower because more people work in other places. Etc etc. As many posters above point out, increasingly expensive oil will change things.

"A rule of thumb is that rail-based systems require 40,000 people per square kilometre to be viable."

Using Mr Moran's benchmark, it can be deduced that the rail systems known as the Subway, uthe Underground and the Metro (of NY, London and Paris respectively) are unviable (with population densities well below 40 000/km^2) and those metropolises would be better served by cars! Hilarious!

What a mantra the word 'choice' has become for those who dominate democracy commercially.

Developers have taken over government in this country. We now have population growth because these fellows believe that they have a divine right to endless customers on toast. They also believe they have a divine right to speculate on land out in the backblocks, virtually tax-free. Roads and railways mark the places where land may be purchased at greatest likely future profit, so the developers have made sure they are in on this. They prefer roads because roads cost less than railways. The 'Road' people in each state dominate the planning departments, just like the housing and land-merchants. They just want to go on building roads forever. As petroleum increases in price, these fellows will be on our backs (as they are in the US) yapping about how we should use our ancient thin soils to grow ethanol. And they'll be trucking that ethanol by road, because it corrodes pipes.

Mr Whatsit from the IPA reflects interest groups that depend on land speculation with its accompanying roads, housing and other infrastructure, so he isn't going to be pro-public transport. He also reflects a pathology in our community whereby people are kept deprived of land so that there are plenty of them desperate to work in factories or fields. If at all possible these semi-slaves (albeit kept well-fed to avoid revolt) will also be forced to pay for cars through the nose and feed them petrol for as long as possible, because there is more profit to be made out of cars than there is to be made out of public transport.

It is not about choice. It is about imposition and obstinate greed.

Kanga

Johnj (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4445#41215) is right. This article is abysmal, even by the standards of the usual dreck churned out by right wing think tanks such as the IPA and CIS.

Johnj, as one who had the misfortune of having to live in Sydney in 2004, I saw the Carr 'Labor' government cynically run down its rail and bus system whilst pouring inordinate amounts of public money and private money into the construction of roads and tollways.

On the flimsiest of excuses, one example being the shortage of drivers caused by the incompetence of a succession of transport ministers, themselves, they had the gall to 'solve' the problem by further cutting back rail services. When it was still not possible to run trains according to the set timetables failed they cut back services even more.

So many public transport users, including myself, were left with no choice but to get around by car, thereby further contributing to Sydney's horrific gridlock that Johnj referred to.

No doubt Carr (notwithstanding his posturing as a supposed environmentalist) was inspired by thinking similar to that displayed in this article, and Sydneysiders are now paying dearly for it.

If Brisbanites don't act soon, we are just about set to follow Sydney's appalling example with the start of a series of astronomically expensive tunnel and tollway projects. The first, the North South Bypass Tunnel, at a cost of $2,000,000,000 works out at $400,000 per metre of road. For a fraction of this money, it would be possible to build a first rate public tranpsort system that would entice a large proportion of motorists to leave their vehicles at home.

For further information, visit http://www.notunnels.org.

It just seems to me that cities like Sydney and Melbourne are far too big for their own good these days, which is why I have no intention of living in Melbourne in the future, as much as there are some things I love about the place. Cities with comparable populations in other nations are either much smaller, or are themselves merging with many other cities in an endless urban landscape, so it's a lot easier to move people around.

One of the issues alluded to in the article is that Melbourne has a radial rail network. That's fine if you want to go from the outer suburbs to anywhere between where you live and the city, but if you want to go to another outer suburb, it's intolerable (and buses are just too slow) -- you virtually have to go all the way into the city and back out again. Who was the genius who designed that system? To build several rail lines as rings connecting each radial rail line would cost a lot now. Maybe it would be less expensive in the long run than building a lot more roads, but has anyone even considered it?

As to all the people talking about the looming shortage of oil, sure. However, it's not like we'd never be able to drive cars again. Admittedly, I'm no expert, but hasn't Brazil made a huge ethanol push? Wouldn't Australia be in a perfect position to do the same, or something similar? Don't we also have massive reserves of gas? I'm not saying we may be able to replace oil adequately (I don't know), but all the doomsday prophets need to think outside the box for just a second, if only to realise that it's not in the interests of big oil companies to make record profits in the final decade of oil supply, only to then go out of business.

It won't be fuel petroleum we'll miss so much, Shorbe. It'll be plastic.

From some things I have read there is no shortage (at the moment) of oil that has pushed the price up, but speaculation of foreign markets that Iran is going to have their "nice American cousins" over for a visit to help with the spring cleaning in the future that has put the price where it is.

Not withstanding, there will be a shortage of fuel and we will have to look at alternatives. The Government has just given around 53 million to Ford Australia to develop their two new cars. If they were serious they would insist on hybrid cars or at least minimum fuel consumption standards. They are only serious about making more money through their taxes that they will eventually give back to us at a lousy $10 a week and tell us that it's manna from heaven.

A straw poll among my friends suggests that a price of $2.50 to $3.00 per litre for fuel would cause them to reduce their fuel usage. I suspect that there would be a huge shakeout of freight, international travel, tourism etc at that kind of level. Anybody know if you can run a jet airliner on methanol?

In some ways cars are the last thing we need to worry about in relation to oil prices. Methanol, biodiesel, hybrids, fewer 4wd behemoths etc could all reduce our dependence on oil. The AWB could do with a local market for all that unsaleable wheat.

Sadly, I think those who see rising fuel prices as a panacea for our car-cogged cities are mistaken. A lot of people will simply stick more purchases on credit and continue driving. However I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Johnj,

A considerable number of informed experts have come to the conclusion that the consequences of high petrol prices could be a lot more serious than you imagine. They could well trigger the complete collapse of our economy, and hence civilisation, because very aspect of our economy is so dependent upon petroleum. I suggest you read the material on the web about Peak Oil. I found the following article about how petroleum shortages could cause running water to fail using the google search term 'petro-collapse':

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=2

Some good mailing lists to join for information on these topics are

Energy Resources : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources

Running On Empty, Oz : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyroeoz

The problem I see with fuel is that in real terms it has not gone up when related to average weekly earnings.

I read a report a while ago, that the fixed quantity of petrol has not been above 8% AWE since 1971. In fact a few years ago, it was down to 4%.

What this means is that in real terms for wage earners, petrol has not gone up in 35 years, but varied downwards creating the impression that it has gone up.

What we need to reduce demand to balance with supply and stretch out the finite oil reserves of the world.

The $2.50 to $3.00 that has been mentioned would be about the right figure, but as long as no pay rise happens to restore the buying power.
Regulating back the purchasing power of the labour market will continue the distortion.

With some sectors of the economy on world market pricing, where the price does not rise, making them pay for the regulated compensation wage increase ( as you cannot subsides your self) is very discriminatory.

• Many people believe we have already used half the worlds oil reserves
• We use what took 400 years to create, EVERY DAY!
• If we used renewable, from wheat and canola for the petrol and diesel, it would consume 80,000,000 tonnes a year. This is several times Australia’s production.

Just seen Daggett’S comments

I agree that is possible if we don’t act now, if it’s not to late already.

My opinion is that if we continue to give full compensation for petrol (as a % calculation) to the wage’s paid in our country, we will put the country into a depression.
All it really does is transfer the cost of energy to the cost structure of the agriculture sector. Their farm gate to petrol ratio has changed by about 25 times during the same time period. Keep doing this and we will environmental disaster as farmers try to keep afloat with very poor terms of trade.

Cheers to all, time for some new energy’s ideas and lifestyles

So can anyone really see a happy outcome from this problem? It seems to me that cutting back on driving isn't going to make a big difference then. Are we just waiting for the next Dark Age?

I am a little dubious about all this apocalyptic doomsaying. No question that we have some tough times ahead, but I found the Jan Lunberg's article referred to by daggett was dodgy in the extreme. Coal-fired power stations will be shut down because there won't be any diesel to transport the coal? Oh please, give me a break. Hasn't this guy ever heard of steam trains?

Having read Roberto Vacca's "The Coming Dark Age" in the 1970s, and seen none of his predictions come to pass, I find this current debate a bit like deja vu. Peak oil presents a real challenge, but as has been hammered elsewhere in this forum, the real problem is sustainability. Public transport is a significant part of the solution, we just need politicians to recognize this fact.

Some good points from Mr Moran, but he wonders off into that la la land of economic fundamentalists and similar religious freaks. PT demand is currently very peaky, price-by-peak might work as an interim solution and is worth a try, but really its just one more reason for reform of working hours/work-life balance and the absurd city-centrism of urban planning.

The 'government monopoly bad' argument is silly, as the once Seven Sisters (big oil co's) have became four (oligopy), soon three, how long before just one or two (mon/duoploy), yet another market failure that we're meant to just ignore. In an ideal world economists would recognise this as a learning opportunity, namely that presentable Young Liberals aren't the defining limiting resource after all, energy is, but that would be too much to ask.

Blocking road charging because governments are inclined to tax is a pretty breath-taking injunction, I expect we'll soon see Mr Moran arguing against Medicare copayments and privatised education because government may exploit them also.. i wont hold my breath.

Its in his finish that Mr Moran goes really curly, "The car is the preferred means of transport unless parking is expensive. Trying to discriminate against it not only offends against personal choice but will reduce the value of the city and jeopardise its future attractiveness as a living, working and leisure centre."

People 'preferred' to use slavery and child labor, still do in many parts of the world, because they could ignore the externalised effects. I invite Mr Moran to google climate change, carcinogenic particulates, road toll, oil depletion, and resource war, if he is still feigning ignorance of what the externalised effects of private car use are. Apparently none of these appear on his balance sheets, but then apparatchichs are often woefully deluded.