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.