Your enthusiasm might just help the GreenHouse Gas problem as well as health and friendliness.

Rob a very city centric view of things. Your article makes some sense but it only applies to Sydney, Melbourne and perhaps Brisbane.

Imagine putting half a billion dollars into affordable housing so we do not have the "dormatory suburbs" in the boonies where people have no choice but to use cars.

The solution is called infrastructure roads, rail, busways, bike paths and walking tracks. Unfortunately only roads make us consume an uneven amount of energy, in other words roads make money.

I don't think any rational urguement will change this Gold rule.

Doctor, in NSW the government does not know how to respond to any transportation needs that will carry us into the year 2020 and beyond. In the Sydney metropolitan area cars choke our roads every day of the week. How does the government respond? It approves construction of the Lane Cove road tunnel with a dual carriageway. So as the car population increases the lanes to carry that extra traffic decreases. This is what is laughingly referred to as progress. So we foolishly assume that public transport services will increase to compensate. What do we find? No relief there. In fact the number of train services has decreased after the introduction of the new timetable. Anecdotal evidence says the commuters are unhappy. Christine B writes: after 3:30pm trains from Central to Oatley used to run every 15 minutes but it’s now every 30 minutes; a fifty percent reduction. Glenn writes: the South Coast was serviced by 5 trains between 4pm and 5pm. That ‘service’ has been reduced to 2 trains and the 4:20pm service from the city now takes 1 hour and 21 minutes instead of the 47 minutes it used to take. Progress!

Here in NSW our politicians do not understand our transportation problems; they are the problem. I am sure that none of our alleged politicians will approve and encourage bicycle travel to and from work until they can figure out how to tax it.

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, where's the economic case for public transport?

Until and unless there is one, no politician of any colour or persuasion is going to make it his business to promote trains or buses over revenue-raising roads.

One of the realities of twentyfirst-century life in this “democracy” of ours is that everything that governments do is regulated by the almighty and all-pervasive dollar. Long gone, I'm afraid, is the concept that the role of a government was to provide essential services to its citizenry. In its place is some form of perverted semi-capitalist urge to maintain that essential services are per se required to make a profit, or be terminated.

Once upon a time, governments built roads and railways, bridges and tunnels. Once upon a time, governments ran trains, buses, even airlines. Today, the prevailing view is that these are not essential services, but marketable commodities. Hive them off to private enterprise, and all we get in return is higher prices, lower levels of performance, and a lecture that the concept of “user-pays” is carved in tablets of stone as the guiding light of our economic lives.

The shame of it all is that it appears irreversible. Very soon, there will be no such thing as public services.

But I'll have a lazy quid on the fact that we will still have public servants.

I get nervous when the government starts "easing me out" of something.

I would like more support for healthier and more sustainable choices.
I use public transport or my bike for most of my work travel. Some ideas, gripes and questions about the issues I see.
- Why does my rego and insurance cost exactly the same regardless of how many km's I do per year? Surely there is a viable formula that balances the need to have infrastructure in place against the increased costs associated with high levels of usage. Are taxes on fuel regarded as covering this?
- Why not a bikeway running alongside the rail lines? Right now if I want to ride to work I'm on public roads almost all the way into work complete with plenty of drivers who seem to take delight in moving over to get close to me. The proximity of the truck is directly proportional to the number of bits hanging off the side of the truck.
- If I do decide to take my bike and things go astray I can't put it on a train to complete my journey or return home (peak hours cover a fairly big period).
- In a similar vein those who don't work close to public transport can't take their bikes on trains during peak hours (train to the closest station and ride from there). Maybe allow bikes on the rear carriage at any time and those who don't like it could sit further forward as a compromise.
- Some Brisbane buses have bike racks on the front, I've never seen a bike on one. Is this lack of user acceptance or are they too difficult to use?
- No toilets on trains and most station toilets are closed except during the morning peak - awkward if you are on a long journey and/or have drunk to much coffee.

On a positive note QR's bike lockers are great, I've had one for years and use it most days.

R0bert

I think car dependence is even worse in Sydney, where I live. The problems of road congestion and exhaust pollution could be alleviated if we had state and local government that planned properly, and adequately invested in public transport infrastructure. For example, newer suburbs of Sydney are characterised by a sea of houses accessed via maze-like road networks with just one central shopping centre. The result is lifeless streets, devoid of local facilities and points of interest, in stark contrast to the crowded shopping mall, where motorists almost fight over parking spaces. However, introducing greater population density to reduce car dependence and increase social interaction needs careful planning and design. The ugly battery hen style apartments that have sprung up around Sydney give the appearance of a thriving local community but in reality create more social isolation than low house density suburbs.

Sydney is a more challenging place for bicycles than Melbourne because of its hills and narrow roads. Nevertheless, cycling should be allowed on footpaths, safe from road enraged drivers and drivers using their mobile telephones. Perhaps we can learn from Japan, where cyclists and pedestrians have shared footpaths for many decades. In Tokyo the pedestrian traffic makes Sydney City look like a quiet country town. Everywhere in Tokyo you can find bicycle parking facilities, but residents may not register a car unless they have an off-street location to park it.

For many people I think dependence on cars comes down to lower cost and greater convenience. Public transport is quite costly and very inconvenient (slow and infrequent). Although I live within an easy walk of a railway station, the time taken to commute to work by train and the cost of the fare is still greater than the time it takes me to drive and the cost of petrol. Nevertheless, I still use public transport most days of the week because I find it more relaxing and therefore beneficial to my health.