Celivia I would welcome improvement in public transport.

However, personal the experience of public transport is, they spend heaps and the service is lucky to remain the same. I cite the very fast train experience of Victoria, which, after having millions of dollars thrown at it, isn’t (very fast at all).

I do not believe we should encourage subsidized transport at all. If a “commercial undertaking” (and provision of a transport network is, after all, supposed to be a commercial undertaking, since it is supposed to charge users a fee) cannot support itself and pass the tests of economic probity which is applied equally to other enterprises, it is not worthy of support. It fails and should be stopped.

As for looking after the planet and the needs of people, again, the “needs of people” are automatically reduced if we reduce the numbers of people. Population control is central to any debate about.
As I wrote previously “Third world breeders with more than 2 children are “future eaters”.”

One of the problems I have with a carbon tax is the practical mechanics of measuring it.

Some scientific calculation is put up, a bit like “flavour of the month” or “this week butter bad, margarine good” and everyone rushes off and supports it and creates a “carbon trading credits scheme” which is used to do what? – regulate economic growth and facilitate cross-border transfer of wealth?
The biggest problem with “carbon trading” is – measuring what is being credited. The ability for accuracy (bearing in mind we are dealing in trillions of dollars) is critical and we have no idea of how to measure it (re NZ cattle).

A simple fact, cannot measure it, cannot manage it. The Carbon Credit system is one which has emotional pull, in that it is seen to address a problem but lacks what is demanded of taxes, prices and charges, being an objective and accurately measurable basis.

The Kyoto problem is one too of a system which, as Mr Howard correctly pointed out, shackles our economy whilst facilitating the growth of our (commerical) competitors.

http://reg.org.au/REG%20HOME.htm

PK, it's hard enough being mine host without getting into too many of the conversations. And when I do, and am then called on to adjudicate, someone is sure to suggest I'm biased. So, you'll have to do without my input, although, when all's said and done, I favour the bike as the best form of transport for most trips.

Thanks, Graham Y - see you on the cycle path sometime. Col Rouge, your last post started to sound almost reasonable - you don't like carbon taxes or the Kyoto agreement - views that are looking increasingly out of step with responsible opinion. So, what are your solutions to global warming? Surely not the nuclear bandwagon, as Howard and others are promoting.

GY
Yes, bikes are best for short distance trips.
Improving cycle paths and extending facilities to stall bikes at stations and other public places like shopping centres, work places at very low cost or no charge is necessary to entice people to hop on their bikes and leave the car at home.
The reason my children are not cycling to school is a safety reason. I am sure that many more children would be able to ride their bikes to school if there were safe cycle ways.

Also, when erecting new suburbs or workplace buildings, a good infrastructure and lay-out should be a focal point: can people get around on their bikes safely and are people encouraged to walk?
Perhaps there can be a well-coordinated local bus that takes people to and from the train station on work days.

Col
There will be objections to every plan to reduce greenhouse gases, but ‘something’ needs to be done.

“I cite the very fast train experience of Victoria, which, after having millions of dollars thrown at it, isn’t (very fast at all).”
The Labor government had to reestablish the rail system that the Libs had demolished. The Libs sold off Victoria's public assets. While they haven't done as effective a job as I would like, they are at least trying to undo a lot of damage the Kennett government did. Besides - investment into the VFT will continue and it will become a vital link for the regional areas.

I do agree that improving the public transport system won’t be an easy task, but I’m not convinced that it can’t be done.

Largely improving public transport will be an improvement for the environment- how can it not be?
Public transport should be a public investment just like we pay collectively for Fire brigades, police services, residential street lighting etc.

“I do not believe we should encourage subsidized transport at all...”
In other words, if we can’t make a profit out of it, don’t do it?

Continued

“Population control is central to any debate about.”
I do agree that people shouldn’t be breeding like rabbits, but population levels need to stay fairly level and are just a part of sustainable living. It would be good if all babies could be wanted babies.
There are still far tot many unwanted pregnancies and this is unnecessary.
It’s not only the parents’ oblication but the govt’s responsibility as well to educate young teenagers about sex and reproduction, and to make contraception freely and readily available.
The money the govt is now spending on counselling of pregnant women would be better spend on handing out free contraception and improving sex education in schools INCLUDING the religious schools.

“The Kyoto problem is one too of a system which, as Mr Howard correctly pointed out, shackles our economy whilst facilitating the growth of our (commerical) competitors.”
The Kyoto is far from ‘shackling’, it is a joint effort by countries to work together towards sustainable living. Cooperation and compromise are words that are probably not included in Howard’s dictionary.

Col, what I am trying to say is that improving public transport is just a small part of a large equation. We need to use every opportunity and means to create a pollution free future.
Just because there is no perfect solution is no reason not to try at all.

Like PK I was going to ask you what you think would be a viable solution (apart from the market driven ones- which are rarely for the long term good).

My thoughts:
* Using public transport can be seen as creating positive externalities for private transport users, rather than a cost "through public subsidies". For example, every time I catch the bus, I'm taking one car and its associated pollution and traffic jamming capabilities off the road for someone else to enjoy.
* Public transport is tricky - where I am at the moment, it is a twenty-minute walk to the bus, and then when I get there, the buses are 55 minutes apart, which makes life difficult. So I often drive. If the buses were, say, 20 minutes apart and there was adequete seating and shelter at the bus stop, I would use PT much more often.
* We need to recognise that PT is not a solution for many people - trying to drop children at school & activities, and do the grocieries, is not really possible on public transport. But that dosn't mean it shouldn't exist.
* The 'park and ride' idea in Melbourne's east, where there is a large free car park near the Eastern Freeway, where several buses pull in is the best idea I've seen to bridge the need for a car after work and the frustration of driving in the city - there should be more of these options.
* Railway stations should have oodles of parking - big multistory carparks, that only require you to put your validated rail ticket in at the end of the day to exit for free. I avoid using rail because its not the close enough to walk/ride, and when I drive there, I cannot park anywhere