“...capping the unsustainable population growth of the least able”
How? To help them become more ‘able’?
Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to solve the problems in developing countries. “Rich countries have focused on ways to reduce carbon emissions but have largely ignored helping poor nations cope with the consequences.” (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6126242.stm )

“Re “envy and small mindedness” I could be referring to your comments “
You failed to explain how arguing for a sustainable future is being envious and small minded. All you have done is showing everyone how threatened you are by others wanting a reasonable standard of living. Perhaps you would have to buy a hybrid car which won’t be as fast as your current car?

Col you are misunderstanding me: I don’t think there is anything wrong with wealth, just with a certain group of wealthy people who continue to consume and exploit the environment without producing and replacing despite alternative options.
They are the real future eaters- I have nothing against those wealthy people who do care.
Perhaps overseas holidays should be limited as aviation does huge damage.

What good will money be if the environment can no longer sustain us?

“...know enough about me to call me a “Future eater”?”
All I know is that you don’t want to give up anything because it’s so ‘convenient’; your only answer so far to a sustainable future is to cap population growth of the third world.

“…you cannot presume to tell me what I “must” do.”
I agree- we cannot tell people what they ‘must’ do; like telling people how many kids they ‘must’ not have.
We can simply discuss the best actions for the environment and we can look at the options.

“...pay the full...fare on public transport...”
We are all paying for roads- is it so unfair to all pay for PT as well?

I am just saying that public transport could be improved and that the use of cleaner fuels should be encouraged so that more people will choose to use it rather than keep polluting the air and using up oil supplies.

Logic Taxis and omnibuses provide an “alternative” for those who cannot drive.

Specific road policing for private vehicles is inseparable to the cost of commercial traffic, including coaches and buses. However, the benefit the community receives in vehicle and parking fines and other governmental imposts likely far outweighs the cost of policing.

Accident costs are covered under TAC and other insurance charges.

Environment: you cannot manage what you cannot measure, when you can quantify the environment cost, we can debate it, until then, your subjective hunch is likely to be entirely different to my subjective hunch.

Alan’s article was about Melbourne, not SE Asia as alluded to by the statistics etc.

And indicated by “maps of the accessibility of jobs in Melbourne by car and transit.”

Now,
“Some public businesses such as the Swiss or French railways in my extensive experience produce a product vastly superior”

I checked, the difference between Melbourne and the cities you named as your “extensive experience”
______________Area Sq Km ____Pop 000___ Pop 000/Sqkm
Zúrich__________92________ 1,293_______14
Basel___________37________ 186_________5
Hong Kong_______1,092_____ 7,116_______6.5
San Sebastián___61________ 183_________3

London__________1,560_____ 7,172_______4.5
New York________785_______ 8,143_______10

Melbourne_______8,806_____ 3,160_______0.3

Zurich, Basel San Sebastian, all follow the "small European City model" in terms of limited geographic spread with significantly lower populations and land area. I would suggest, no basis of “extensive experience” for comparative assessment of any transportation model for Melbourne.

Hong Kong is a closer comparative but with population density 18 times higher than Melbourne, it is not much use either.
My experience of London, with a population density 13 times that of Melbourne is closer than any of your “extensive experience”.

On that basis, my “amateur experience” should prevail.

If you want to make comparative assumption, I suggest you start with comparative models and not whimsy.

My point with public transport is, have it but it must pay its way, otherwise it is merely a drain on limited public funds. If it cannot fund itself commercially, it does not deserve to be a toy to pacify ill founded and discredited notions of socialists.

Celevia “YOU were the one who called the Third World people ‘future feeders’.”

And you assume that entitles you to call me names?

The whole “future eater” comment was initiated by PK, you just “climbed on the band wagon”, for reasons all your own.

Please resist trying to mitigate your own poor behaviour

“not directed at you but at all people who oppose the idea of using the greener options we have or are able to create!”

Yes it was directed at me. That is how you have chosen to “judge” me. A judgement I resent because it is based on your ignorance of me.
-
And it still does not excuse your use of derogatory snipes.

“Is your car a hybrid?”

is yours?

My next car will be a Bentley – my choice and paid for at my cost, but since I will be managing my business through telecommuting from my sea-change location,(a fabulous work model, which I have enjoyed, on occasions over the past 7 years) the use will be relatively low.

“and if polluters keep on polluting.”

If we were to tax cars on emissions, mine would be relatively low compared to someone driving a 20 year old bomb.

I repeat, if you want to make gratuitous and derogatory attacks on me, I will heed GY’s warning and trust to his vigilance.

As for enquiring mind – when you can explain your outbursts, which I quoted previously viz YOUR WORDS ““A pathetic excuse eagerly snapped up by the Rich”
and how you can claim they do not represent “envy”, I will respond, until then I will decline.

As for “Cleaner cars and public transport are crucial in reducing greenhouse gases.”
Efficient engines will reduce greenhouse gases, Trains and trams which do not deliver a cost effective service will not.

If you want me to go into more detail I will be happy to analyse any structured proposal you present (as I have done with Logics “city comparisons) but I will decline responding to the emotional and irrational cries for “socialist solidarity behind public transport”

Col

I lived in London for 5 years and made extensive use of public transport. I also have a reasonable aquaintence with Paris. I have travelled and worked in several lands and can converse in three other languages.

The Basel Zurich and San Sebastián areas involve low density surounding towns and cities between which people commute regularly. The total catchment areas in these places is similar in size to Melbourne. You need local knowledge to understand this.

Taxis are expensive. Omnibuses are public transport.

Insurance does not cover the full costs of emergency departments. Medicare takes a lot of that expense.

Just because you do not know how to quantify the costs of environmental damage does not mean you can ignore it.

Your off the cuff statement about over population belies the fact that it is the wealthier countries who produce the highest per capita greenhouse contribution.

You suggest that fines cover the cost of policing - this is just a wild guess.

I wouldn't touch a Bentley, they are not found to be that reliable or very rugged, they are just a snob thing. A small Japanese car would be a better proposition.

This article has infuriated me so much with its blatantly unsupported and ignorant claims that I've decided to deconstruct this piece in the faint hope that Alan Moran might see it.

First and foremost, I found it very interesting that Alan somehow figured out that despite the huge rise in the price of oil, and the effect that compounded inflation has had over 4 decades, the price of running a car has apparently remained unchanged. Well to put it simply, I disagree. I did some research into the matter. Freely available figures from a variety of Australian government websites have been put together into a very simple table.

NSW
Population 6000000
Number of Vehicles (619 per Capita) 3714000
Average number of KM's Driven (15000 per vehicle) 55,710,000,000
Cost to RTA per KM $0.05026
Cost to Commonwealth per KM $0.00296
Cost to Consumer per KM $0.75370
Total Cost to NSW Driver per KM $0.80692

The cost to the RTA is sourced from the NSW budget papers. The cost to the commonwealth is the total the commonwealth will spend on roads in the nation divided proportionately to the NSW population. The total cost to the consumer per km is taken from NRMA and RACV websites, assuming the popular Aussie Big 6's are used, with all major costs included.

As Alan has used US dollars in his figures, this represents a difference of 65 cents per km for car travel. What all of these figures ignore is opportunity cost of providing these roads (almost incalculable), and the inevitably soon to be implemented carbon tax (which should heavily increase the cost of car travel).

The other issue we have, is that in NSW, as someone that lives in the inner suburbs of Sydney, the cost of providing me with a road is far less than the cost of providing new roads to new developments, yet i pay the same registration costs, go figure.

Logic “I have travelled and worked in several lands and can converse in three other languages.”
How absolutely lovely for you, but what has that to do with Melbourne Transport policy?

“The total catchment areas in these places is similar in size to Melbourne”
You are on the ropes and making that up. The population mass, geographic areas and population densities are all totally different. There is no basis for comparison.

Emergency departments deal with more than motor accidents,

motor accidents cost are covered by insurance and TAC.

“costs of environmental damage”

You are so “all knowing”, put up a suggestion

and I will shred it.

Social conditions vary according to the state of national development. If you want to live in a low impact society, go find a tree and enjoy your career as a below subsistence farmer. Certainly one benefit, you will not have access to the internet.

“fines cover the cost of policing, this is just a wild guess.”

http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/bc348d5912436a9cca256cfc0082d800/f13b019f32eecb48ca2571fe00046130!OpenDocument

“Mr Holding said Police budget now around $1,525,000”

http://www.fightfines.info/12.html - sourced from State Budget http://www.budget.vic.gov.au/CA256FE000059F74/0/8504417DADDE3614CA256FE90006AD0F?OpenDocument

Speeding fines, $343,495,000 (Victorian 2006 budget).

23% of the entire police budget is recouped in speeding fines alone. Policing in the state covers a lot more than just “traffic”

As a “wild guess” I reckon I am right and you are, once again proved a self appointed “EXPERT” who got it WRONG.

Private vehicle traffic as a cost to society is a net cash earner for government.

“I wouldn't touch a Bentley,… A small Japanese car would be a better proposition.”

Trust me, you will never see the inside of mine.

Along with your multiple languages and “expertise in everything” do you have a degree in arrogance?

The blind arrogance which entitles you to believe you can tell me what sort of car I am allowed to drive?

Let us be absolutely clear about this, you have no right to tell me or anyone else how we should deploy our own private resources.

Should I need advice, I will ask a real expert, not a self appointed one.

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