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.

As far as Sydney goes, no more money should be spent on roads and the city left to choke on private car use until people get the message that heavy dependence on private motor vehicles is not sustainable.

Th world's best cities have decent public transport, but Sydney seems to take smog-ridden, traffic ruined LA as its model.

Pericles: Cost of road building and maintenance; inefficiencies and distortions in the cost of road freight versus rail freight; the cost, social and economic, of road related noise, water and air pollution; costs to the health care system and insurance costs related to private road transport; the distortion of our balance of payments caused by car imports and oil imports; and government subsidies for the domestic motor vehicle manufacturing industry:- how is that for an economic case for public transport without even mentioning global warming?

There is a case for a decent, well run and well funded transport system. Private affluence and public squalor is not the way.

I don't drive or own a car nor do I ever want to. Will I get some kind of tax break or rebate because of my favourable attitude/behaviour?

strayan

Sorry you don't get any tax back. You have to pay stamp duty and GST on the new car, the cost of the car, petrol and petrol excise plus GST, insurance, registration, third party insurance, maintenance, parking, parking fines, speeding fines not to mention fuzzy dice and shiny wheels.

Thou shalt consume you tax bludger (grin)

I agree with PK. Let's intoduce a moratorium on new road development in cities, and have an independent review on the whole system from independent reputable organisations (The Warren Centre of Sydney University has already done some good traffic stuff for Sydney)and start diverting significant funds out of roads and into public transport.
If other famous cities around the world can do it, why not us?

PK, I presume you were answering my cynical pseudo-question "where's the economic case for public transport" when you said:

>>Cost of road building and maintenance; inefficiencies and distortions in the cost of road freight versus rail freight; the cost, social and economic, of road related noise, water and air pollution; costs to the health care system and insurance costs related to private road transport; the distortion of our balance of payments caused by car imports and oil imports; and government subsidies for the domestic motor vehicle manufacturing industry<<

But which of these can be turned into an election slogan?

Precisely none.

New roads are built by commercial interests, and we are then asked to pay for them by way of tolls. Nobody sees cost "distortions", they are all part of what we pay for the end-product. Bleating on about social costs does not win elections. Isolating health costs caused by private road transport from other health issues is impossible. Imports do not distort our balance of payments, they are a part of it. Government subsidies for car manufacturers are about employment, not transport choices.

Until and unless we can find a way to elect politicians who serve the public rather than their own careers, we are stuck with this, and many other intractable problems caused by government lack-of-initiative.

Pericles - I think you are both agreeing with and disagreeing with (or, more accurately, quibbling with) my post. But rather than quibbling in reply, I am more interested in a related issue that your post got me thinking about. That is, to what extent is government lack of action and failure to tackle the transport mess in our cities a reflection of our own apathy aand defeatism? A corollary is, what action can individuals take towards providing a solution? I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on that.

Rob Moodie wrote "I want to be gently eased out of my car and onto public transport or onto my bike or onto my feet. And I am delighted for my taxes to be used to encourage me to get off my bum. It might mean I don’t have to get another belt for my trousers."

Good for you Rob.

However, do not assume all of us out here agree with you.

I do not want this or any other government "easing me out of my car and onto public transport"

For the simple reason, despite being heavily subsidised by car-driver taxes, public transport remains, non-user friendly, incooperative in running reliable services and a complete waste of effort.

When public trasnport can deliver me, promptly and efficiently (ie when I want to be delivered in a time similar to me driving between points) to destinations of my choosing as economically and reliably as my car, then I will start to consider it. Until then, I will keep on driving and resist all efforts by any Nanny-State government to attempt to regulate my choices in personal transportation.

Col

I totally agree with you. For once, now where is my medication?

This thread reminded of an occasion when I was stuck on a bus in a traffic jam on Bexley Road (Sydney). This jam, which wasted several hours of my time, was caused by a demonstration against the M4 East Motorway. The majority of the demonstrators had arrived by, you guessed it, DRIVING THEIR CARS. This irony only dawned on me after my fury had subsided.

My family use car, public transport and walking to get around. Each has its place in Sydney, but with traffic becoming a snarled chaotic mess it seems that we haven't got the mix right.

But enough of the doom and gloom. For a good laugh check out Miranda Devine's latest column http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/traffic-hazard-ahead-vegan-cyclists/2006/06/14/1149964604277.html Apparently militant cyclists and pedestrians are to blame for Sydney's traffic woes and "newly entitled pedestrians and cyclists, and their emboldened lobbyists, behave increasingly arrogantly. Pedestrians wander across roads with iPods and mobile phones stuck to their ears, oblivious to the physics of car braking." Remind me not to step in front of Miranda's car, looks like pedestrians are fair game.

The traffic problem WILL be solved and quite soon as the price of oil continues to climb.
There might be tempory downturns in oil price but the trend is always up as is the trend of more population growth. The two combined is going to kill private car ownership eventually.
The trouble at the moment is, each state Government ( & federal as well)
Is blinkered by it's need to be re-elected and to pander to the corperations that pay for their campaigns.

PK, your question "to what extent is government lack of action and failure to tackle the transport mess ... a reflection of our own apathy and defeatism?" is relevant at a number of levels.

You can substitute almost anything for the word "transport". Health. Education. National security. We have gradually shifted the responsibility for our personal situation onto successive governments. And given this power over us, it is inevitably used - as with anyone who attains power - against those who relinquish it, and in favour of the politicians and public servants themselves.

It stems from the deep-seated longing of so many humans to be told what to do, rather than step up themselves to the many decisions we all take every day. This apathy also means we give up any right to complain when things go wrong.

I agree with Col, it is not the government's job to coerce us into one pattern of behaviour or another. The result would, inevitably, be similar to the failure of the centralized planning typical of a communist economy. When the farmers didn't have to make their own decisions on what crop to grow, they didn't have to take responsibility for the end result.

What to do about it? Adapt.

There's no chance of violent revolution or mass civil disobedience, after all, 'cos we simply can't be arsed.

Pericles: "What to do about it? Adapt."

Care to elaborate?

I find the theme or subtext that I detect in several posts here, that transport planning is primarily a matter of preserving personal choice, rather strange. There are undeniably areas of society and governance where personal choice must be curbed in the pursuit of 'the greater good'. There comes a point in urban transport planning where the supremacy of the private motor vehicle has to be reduced because its side-effects become too damaging. We are rapidly reaching that point, and despite the cycnicism and resistance of some, I see signs that governments are beginning to realise it.

For once everyone seems to more or less agree. Alternative transport Good. Cars baaad. How to get P.T. up to scratch? Only the detail gets debated.

Sarnian I think has spotted the likely answer to reducing congestion, which is increased running costs. Pericles pointed out that government at any level won't solve the problem anytime soon. NSW not long ago halved the budget for building & maintaining cycleways in the state, particularly in Sydney where antagonism between motorists & cyclists grows. Mirdanda Devine is a dimwit but she's not the only one who thinks cars rule.

As a committed and long-suffering cyclist I'd be overjoyed to see petrol costs increase to the point alternative transport is more than a quaint idea.

Sarnian “The traffic problem WILL be solved and quite soon as the price of oil continues to climb.”

That is so true.

The “market” should determine the popularity of car transport.

Fuddy state or federal governments should not attempt to manipulate those market trends, as they have done in the past, by subsidising public transport with funds form private transport.

Ultimately, petrol prices will have to exceed $10 litre before I would think of converting to public transport (it is not that I love cars, more that the cost per hour of my TIME means cars will almost always “win” and public transport always be a poor 99th (2 to 98 being cheaper cars or motorcycles).

I guess a lot of mum’s, driving kids to play group, will hit the wall of economic necessity along time before me but that is their market decision too, I had to walk to school when I was a kid and childhood obesity is a current problem, not something which was around when I was in primary school.

The problem with your ultra-capitalist stance on this Col is that it denies any value to any form of government assistance, in any form.

>>Fuddy state or federal governments should not attempt to manipulate those market trends, as they have done in the past, by subsidising public transport with funds form private transport.<<

Under this banner governments would presumably not be allowed to a) tax the young and healthy to subsidise the sick and elderly, b) tax the smart to subsidise education for the dim, c) tax the pacifists to subsidise the armed forces, d) tax the law-abiding citizen to fund a police force etc. etc.

In short, you are saying that government has no right to interfere in any aspect of our lives, and should be abolished tomorrow.

I can and do disagree with government strategy on public transport, but the concept of "user pays, live with it" is a symptom of the failure of the system as a whole.

And before PK jumps in to remind me of my own apparent complacency in the face of such ills, there is a world of difference between accepting that the world has fundamentally changed, and being an apologist for the iniquities that change has wrought.

Adapting to a system that is heavily loaded against you is a necessary pre-condition to changing it. Think of the life of a dissident writer in the old Soviet Union, or a freethinking teacher under Mao; first they had to survive, to stay alive long enough to ultimately influence the system.

We are in the same situation. Governments who are supposed to work on behalf of the citizenry instead consistently and universally work for themselves and their dependents. They do so under the twin banners of rampant capitalism (with Col supporting them to the hilt) and democracy, which is the least worst system yet devised.

Both have been intellectually devalued to the point of unrecognizability, but we are still asked to salute them. At some point, a more acceptable system must become apparent, but until then we will need patience.

Pericles

There is no comparison between a health system, there to support all and thus there to be paid for by all. As for subsidising education for the “dim”, as you put it, that is like wasting money, education for the smart will produce some merit but not for the “dim” (your words).

As for “In short, you are saying that government has no right to interfere in any aspect of our lives, and should be abolished tomorrow.”

In short, government should involve themselves in our lives as little as possible because we should know (I certainly do) what is best for us as individuals and be assured, government does not. That does not presume we should abolish it forewith or even anytime soon. Please do not try to put words in my mouth which I clearly did not state.

Sarnian was perfectly correct, regarding market forces. People like me will pay for our private transport because, when I work out the cost of relying on public transport, relative to the value or price I place on my time, public transport does not deliver a “viable cost alternative”.

That is not “Ultra-Capitalistic” it is common sense. I am sorry you need a government to act as your wet nurse, the ultra-socialists are compelled to seek a co-dependent lifestyle where someone else carries them through life from cradle to grave, ensuring that no harm or even effort is required. Us “”Ultra-Capitalists” believe life is to be enriching experience and not directed by a bunch of government paid bureaucrats who tell us we will get to and from work on a government funded transport network which runs to a timetable which does not suit us.

That is not “living” that is “enslavement to the state” and I want none of it..

As for “Governments who are supposed to work on behalf of the citizenry instead consistently and universally work for themselves and their dependents.”

“Ultra-Capitalists”, like me are demanding centralised governmental power should be diminished. You would seem to be demanding similar. Which strangely contradicts your initial statements and criticism

It is clear I hit a spot, if your over-reaction and selective listening is anything to go by.

>>I am sorry you need a government to act as your wet nurse<<

For the record, I believe that the smaller the government, the more likely we are to get value for our tax dollar.

But my analogy was specific. You suggested that the government has no business "subsidising public transport with funds form private transport", as if this were the only source of revenue that supports public transport. I pointed out that if you believe that taxation should not be used in this manner, you must equally believe the same conditions apply to all government programmes.

Well, do you, or don't you?

If you don't, perhaps you could be a little more specific about which services you believe are "there to support all and thus there to be paid for by all".

I await your list of “must haves” with interest.

I suspect it will contain the usual armed forces and police, because generally speaking we prefer others to do the dirty work of protecting us and our freedom. But if you include education, you also have to justify the presence or absence of private education. If you include health, you have to justify the existence - and, most importantly, the scope - of private healthcare.

And if you exclude public transport from the “must have” column, you might like to enlighten us on the government's role in selling off to private enterprise the infrastructure built with its citizens' money. Is it justified on the basis that they have no business interfering with the laws of supply and demand? Or is it a simple case of grand larceny, practised on a powerless community, fervently supported by those who use other people's money to get around?

Waiting until economic forces tip the balance from one mode of transport to another only ensures that by then, the price will be too high for the vast majority of the citizenry. It may be logical to you, but only because you can afford it.

Col, I think it will be a long time before petrol gets to $10/litre. But, if/when it does the average taxpayer will not be at all interested in seeing their tax dollars spent on roads they don't use. So you might still be driving, but the roads will be crumbling under your wheels. You might also find agressive cyclists and pedestrians and bus commuters ready to hound and harass motorists.

Pericles: good spiking of the 'Governments shouldn't tell us what to do' line spouted by some on this thread. In fairness to Col it is very difficult to pinpoint absolutely and with confidence, the range and degree of services that governments should provide. However, it is absolutely clear that urban transport is an area that needs heavy government involvement and it cannot be left to market forces at all. Apart from anything else, there is more than one market force applying here, eg the economics of private v public transport and the need for an efficient economy to have efficient transport, which forces and needs may or may not be working in accord with each other. I believe that governments should develop transport programs that have regard to economic, social and environmental outcomes. There is a very long way to go for that to happen. And it may involve some incentives and penalties to deter private transport.

PK, I believe that where public services are concerned, following any kind of economic argument is utterly pointless.

How long would you care to spend arguing the economic value of an extra year of life? Or the economic value of sending our troops to Iraq or Timor Leste?

Here's a true story. My UK-based little white-haired mother, well into her ninth decade, can still get around fairly well under her own steam. Until the bus company closed her bus route, the one that took her to the nearest town. "Oh well dear" she said to me over the phone (she's a true-blue Tory) "it was only used by a few old dears like me anyway."

So she didn't get around much for a while. Then her Bank phoned to tell her they had some documents for her to sign. "Can't you send them in the post?" she asked. "Can't do that Mrs Pericles, haven't you got any relatives who can drive you in?" "I have one son in California and one in Australia, which one do you suggest I ask?"

It did galvanize her to research an alternative. "I now take one bus up to your old school, and change there" she told me on Sunday "I have to cross the road (you remember how scary that can be) and wait for twenty minutes. It's fine at this time of year, but it gets a little chilly in winter, what with the wind and that..."

Services should be needs-based. Col doesn't need them, so he is quite happy to bag them on the basis that if he can get by without them, so should everybody else.

The prevailing political wind is in the same direction. Abdicate as much responsibility as possible by claiming that the private sector is so much more efficient at providing these services, and you can then wash your hands of any responsibility for the vicious price-gouging that ensues.

Until we can answer the basic question – what services do we need – we are at the mercy of the economic rationalists.

Pericles: I can but agree with your well-argued and well-illustrated point. Col Rouge - have you abdicated from the discussion?

Pericles, thats a rough tactic bringing your elderly grey haired mother into the debate. Does Col have space to put answers without it looking like an attack on your mum?

I tend to be somewhat more on the side of common services than Col but not as far as some. I'm going to have a go at answer to the situation you have outlined (and try to do so without looking like I'm picking on dear old grey haired ladies).

Assumptions
- There is a taxi service available in your mums area.
- A choice not to use it would be based on financial reasons rather than a dislike of taxis.

Options
- One (or both) of the sons living overseas send mum some money to cover taxi fares for those occasional trips she needs to make.
- Your mum pools with some of the other little old ladies who were using the bus service and they share a taxi on those occasions they need to travel somewhere not serviced by viable bus routes.
- Mum moves closer to major facilities if this is a big issue in her life.
- Mum does what she sounds like she is doing now and makes the best of the reality that not enough people were using the old service to keep it going. She has found other ways of doing what she needs to do and good on her for that.

It seems that you are suggesting that Cols twin brother (invented by myself) should be required to subsidise a severly under-utilised bus service to be available on those occasions when somebody wishes to use it. I'm left wondering what the cost per actual passenger trip of an under-utilised bus service is compared to alternative such as a taxi. I suspect that the only advantage of the under-utilised bus service is that somebody else pays most of the cost rather than the person making the trip.

All I know of your mums circumstances are what you have posted and what I have written is an attempt to provide an alternate viewpoint.

R0bert

Pericles “Services should be needs-based. Col doesn't need them, so he is quite happy to bag them on the basis that if he can get by without them, so should everybody else.”

If the “needs” were sufficient, the economics to provide them would be sufficient to warrant their supply on a commercial basis.

When did public bus services become a “need” when little more than 100 years ago, buses did not exist? Are we basing “needs” on historic observation or are we basing “traditional values on some contemporary socialist definition of needs and union authority”?

As for Mum Pericles, might I suggest taxi or local friend. One thing the notion of “needs based services is this – who decides what is a “need” and what is an indulgence?

Doubtless your white haired mum remembers the society of institutional basket cases where a nationalized steel business, car company (quasi) were “needs” to say nothing of telecomm companies, power companies and coal mines with Arthur Scargill trying to bring down the duly elected government.

She probably still rocks in horror on recalling the demands by Michael Foot (denizen of the rabid left) who, with Anthony Wedgewood-Benn (the fella so ashamed of his heritage, he kept changing his name), fought a general election on the notion of nationalization of insurance and every other form of finance company and the insertion of union / socialist political cadres to oversee the publication of every newspaper in the land.

She probably thought, like me, we do not “need” a government who is building economic dinosaurs with our tax payers money.

“Needs” are what we “need” and the only resource or utility service which we “need” is water. The rest, Power, transport, telecoms, airlines, banks etc. are based on historic notions of desire, not “need” and the desire is maintained first and foremost by vested union members who are too fat and lazy to survive anywhere but on the public teat.

Robert – no twin brother, but realistic to imagine hoards of cousins :-)

R0bert, thank you for your concern for my mother. She is making the best of it, as her generation tends to do. She would sooner fly to the moon than accept money from her sons, by the way.

>>I suspect that the only advantage of the under-utilised bus service is that somebody else pays most of the cost rather than the person making the trip.<<

Your logic is that a person who does not use a particular service "subsidises" another who uses it. Once you embark upon that mode of thinking, nothing anyone can possibly say will prevent the conclusion that old people are, by their nature, uneconomic propositions.

In a private health fund the claim statistics are skewed "in favour" of the elderly, and "away from" the young. In other words, the young and healthy are "subsidising" the old and frail. Is this to be tolerated? Why don't we adopt a "user pays" approach and charge the young folk nothing, and soak the oldies?

By their nature, truly public services will be uneconomic. How could they be otherwise? If a service were "economic", private enterprise would take care of it, wouldn't they?

Once again, what services should a government provide with our taxes? How can we possibly avoid the situation where one individual believes that they are "subsidising" another?

Try this exercise. Draw a line down the middle of a page. Make a list of all the places our taxes are spent in the left hand column, and mark off all those that benefit you as an individual on the right.

What do you conclude? That you are paying a motza to the government, and get very little in return.

The key to solving this problem will be to rid ourselves once and for all of the ridiculous concept that you can somehow make taxpayer-funded services equally valuable to every member of the public. Doesn't happen. Cannot happen.

Once again, the question is what is the basic reason that we tolerate taxation, and to what use do we believe those taxes should be put?

Let's imagine a transport company taking goods for sale to supermarkets around Sydney. The trucks are costed at an hourly chargeout rate. If at least 10% of private car commuters could be enticed off the roads through massive improvements to public transport, the resulting reduced road congestion might mean that my trucks would spend at least 5 hours per week less time on the road and my entire cost strcuture would be improved. Would I be able to pass part of my savings on to supermarkets and they pass some on to consumers etc etc? What would this do to benefit the economy, would any of the benefit flow back to the government and would that help pay for the transport?

Isn't that scenario worth considering?

Col Rouge, you claim that public transport is "heavily subsidised by car driver taxes". Really?

Let's consider the costs that cars place on the community. There is the cost of builing and maintianing roads, the cost of air pollution to our public health system, the cost of patching up the victims of car accidents through the public health system (and disability benefits), the consequences of congestion for those things that really do need to be moved by road and the damage of Global Warming.

If the value of petrol taxes and car registration add up to less than the total then in fact car drivers are being subsidised by public transport users and bicycle riders, not the other way round.

re ROberts Taxi option for Gran:- I was recently shocked to discover that I can no longer get into the modern taxis here, due to them being too low to the ground without seat-raising facilities and my busted lumber discs and subsequent impaired leg strength and mobility problems-- I have neither grey hair nor am I a gran, tho I have sustained various injuries, some of them from earlier bike and horse riding-- Do wish i'd been more sedentary in the past, I'd have been better off.
I actually need prising INTO my car, as I now avoid the angst of heavy traffic,and the furnace-like heat of parked vehicles in sub tropical summers etc.Some lo-life stole my 20yr.old car which had appropriate seating, and my new 10 year old one only just accomodates (with difficulty) my impairments.
Although govt. wants to reduce vehicle useage especially during peak hours, I notice they schedule meetings, seminars etc for 9am, schedule thousands of people at public hospitals for 8.30am, students start times, and commercial operators do the same.I'm considered quite peculiar when I refuse 9am appointments because I dont see why I should join the rat-race if I'm available for a later time.
Public Transport has been made less user-friendly recently here..e.g., the bus shelters have been removed around these parts and replaced by a sign with no seating or shade. Havent seen anyone use these of late, whereas the shelters often had bus-users from a local private aged facility. Most of the widows I know who dont drive can't access the bus routes due to physical problems aggravated by heat. Furthermore, the trains are designed for commuters only-- try carrying something or luggage. The windows dont open either; if there are any delays you just swelter.
I havent noticed any innovative ideas from the experts, who I dont believe even use public transport, especially the politicians.

PK your scenario – the variable and random influences which will challenge your ‘scenario’ would make such simplistic calculations void before you got past day one. I would not trust deploying any resources into such a error prone planning suggestion and therefore, observe, even as a ‘scenario’ is lacks all merit.

StephenL – I would note hospital costs are paid by accident insurance schemes. I would note doubt exists as to the real nature or influences of “global warming” and a lot of “global warming”, so I am told is a function of electricity generation, so should we all switch off our air conditioners or room heaters as well?

If you want to come up with some “costs” which the use of the car places on the community, we can debate them but make sure they are “real costs”, not notional and emotional evaluations of subjective numbers which supposedly have a third party relational effect on “life quality”.

The most significant element in any “life quality co-efficient” is the right to exercise “personal choice” and to suggest any government be empowered to direct matters of their electorates “individual and personal choice” sounds and smells of “dictatorship” to me.

>>If the “needs” were sufficient, the economics to provide them would be sufficient to warrant their supply on a commercial basis.<<

Col, should we apply this equally to our armed forces and our police? Surely the logic is identical - if we felt the need to be secure, we would be prepared to pay for it on a commercial basis, would we not?

The "needs" in our society change with each generation. A hundred years ago, where buses, according to you, didn't exist, we lived completely differently. The majority of folk lived, worked and died within walking distance of their birthplace. Families were mutual-help units, both within and across generations. And where this was insufficient, there grew institutions such as Friendly Societies, Societies of Oddfellows etc. that were built around the concept of reciprocity, rather than profit.

My white-haired mother, as you divined, is of the school of self-sufficiency. She thought Viscount Stansgate was a communist and a traitor to his class, considers the European Union to be Germany's revenge on England for losing the war (and France's attempt at expiation of their guilt for needing our help), thought Margaret Thatcher was a saint and still actively works for the Conservatives.

However, in my youth we were active users of public transport, for the simple reason that we could not afford a car. It must be admitted that we rather took the services for granted, and living as we did in the outer reaches of the East End of London, we had considerable choice of both the standard red London Transport buses, the more expensive (and more sophisticated) Green Line, as well as the London Undergorund.

Today, she has no car (never learned to drive, did she), cannot afford taxis, all her friends are elderly and in the same boat, and her independence and mobility are severely restricted.

But she simply puts it down to "getting on, dear". And still votes Conservative.

Surely there is room in our society for public transport, funded by the taxpayer, designed for those who are unable to meet your exacting financial standards.

Col,

Turning down your air conditioning would be a brilliant start. Private transport is only one source of pollution.

The right to exercise personal choice and contribute to our already degraded air quality is not being debated here. The problem is general awareness of the damage being done and our willingness to deal with it. Some, like the author, are more prepared than others to make sacrifices.

The "cost" to the community for our car-dependent lifestyle can't be measured in dollars alone. What's the "cost" of the millions of lost hours to the workforce from car accidents and respiratory problems? Or traffic jams? Fully one-third of Sydney's urban landspace is devoted to car use - roads, carparks, private parking areas etc.

You reckon car use isn't subsidised? The whole city's paying.
$10 a litre is simply a matter of time Col. It can't come soon enough.

Bennie “The "cost" to the community for our car-dependent lifestyle can't be measured in dollars alone.”

Then name and quantify those “Community Costs” and determine how they will be measured and representatively allotted across the voting electorate!

If you expect to use soft-fudge, pseudo science to win any argument, then you are welcome to promote your qualified and quantified submissions.

However, I advise you that if you do, I will analytically shred your submissions and spit them out because, simplistic leftie emotionally pandering is no substitute for reality.
I also consider “individual right of choice” a matter of extreme importance which should not be curtailed by fictional notions of global warming, social levelling or the desires for any set of wannabe centralist dictatorial governmental policy.

Hmm. Col I think you are a computer.

bennie "Hmm. Col I think you are a computer. "

Well bennie, if I am a computer, on any intellectual or meritorious scale, you might aspire to being a sliderule.

Col it's all about 'quality of life'. If you have any faith in qualitative studies you'd be aware the richer we get and the more mod cons we purchase the unhappier we are as a whole. Computers of course ain't aware of this.

One assumes that one's freedom of choice is not to be attained at someone else's expense of course.
Very often quantitative studies lag what is 'known' and readily observed, especially when there are initial denials and dismissals of public concern.
Can think of a few more community costs like extra police services (also fire services may be involved) working on vehicle crime, be it theft, road rage, traffic offenses, accident investigation-cleanup, forensic requirements. Smog with temperature inversion has woeful health costs, and I wouldnt think it salubrious for cyclists being ensnared in peak traffic conditions, much less smog. Roadworks for school pickup areas is another.
Then we have the userpay flow-on costs like those mandated for parking facilities when establishing childcare centres, eating places etc.all adding to general living costs.
A qualitive consideration could be that I stay indoors during peak traffic and school pickup times to avoid the heavy 'exhaust fumes', because my quiet street is on the direct path to the local school, with lights to access the nearby main road.Also the local suburban centre now offers little parking because train commuters use the centre streets for their vehicle parking.Just a few.

Bennie, dearest, “Col it's all about 'quality of life'. If you have any faith in qualitative studies you'd be aware the richer we get and the more mod cons we purchase the unhappier we are as a whole. “

Of course it is all about “Quality of Life”. The most important quality of life is to be free to decide for oneself and not be hamstrung or hog-tied by social engineers and bureacrats.

So, now I will ask the question directly.

I know of a website on which there are the results of “life satisfaction surveys”. I doubt you have ever been there so I suggest visit

www.nationmaster.com

Check out who is more “satisfied” in the world, those in the developed nations or those in the underdeveloped nations. Your claim to “more material wealth = less satisfied” is identified as being a load of cow crap instantly.

After you have studied what you find, I sincerely suggest you return with a quantitative statement to rank and order your qualitative expectations.

In other words, stop bringing moronic gut notions of socialist pandering to this debate and use hard, real and accreditable data instead.

As an accountant, I have spent 30 years developing measuring systems. Anything can be ranked, arrayed, measured and rated. So, with that in mind I challenge you to produce some “quantitive” data to support your “qualitative” aspirations (which can be done), otherwise all you are spouting are the simplistic motherhood statements of the bewildered and beguiled.

Digiwigi another “qualitative decision” could be for you to move house - which is what I am doing, bring on the Sea Change.