It is simple - impose a congestion tax on car commuters to busy areas, and a carbon tax redeemable for commercial vehicles and gradated for fuel economy, put the money into improving and extending public transport, then let's have another look at the economics.

Moran is aware of the issue that there are people
"who do not have a car or access to one" but seems quite content
with a transport system which does not cater for them.

He states that the "wishes of the individuals who comprise the
community ... are expressed in their transport choices" - this is
incorrect. So long as we do not have an adequate public transport
system our choices cannot express our preferences for such a system.

Likewise when we do not have the choice of living in a medium
density area which also has areas of clean safe public open space
nearby, our choices for a private back yard do not reflect a
preference for one over the other.

His assertion that you need 40000 or 25000 people per square mile
for "commercially viable" public transport systems seems like nonsense
(though he doesn't define "commercially viable"). He also says
"Melbourne is one of only a handful of world cities retaining" trams.
I wonder what "world cities" means - to me, this simply sounds like
ignorance.

An ignorance that is apparently shared by the developer of the
Demographia web site he refers to, in which the list of countries
includes just one European country.

You do not need to go far to find counterveiling arguements about the cost of public transport versus private car use - I wont go into them here - but they exists and are more compellimng than those put forward by our author - public transport in Melbourne is expensive -howoever costs are high because patronage is low - go to the Victoriam Public Transports Union web site for a comparison of costs and patroange - it is a simple presentation but tells a tale.

In high to medium density jursidictions public transprt has the potential to outstrip private vehicular transprt in terms of costs and efficiency - and stand on the Hume highway near Tarcutta for example and watch the squillions of B doubles and others thunder past and wonder - trains have got to be more efficient carriers

There is going to be no simple, brilliant idea that will solve this problem. You only have to look at the experience of major cities overseas to understand that there will continue to be tension between what the public appears to want and what governments appear to provide.

In many cases "what the public appears to want" is massively influenced by what is available. If the service isn't there, how can it be evaluated?

The maps in the article that show "access by car" and "access by public transport" may simply reflect availability; we don't know this, of course, because the maps do not give any indication. Some greater definition of the usage "corridors" caused by easier access to i) public transport and b) arterial roads is necessary before the maps become in any way meaningful.

And on the side of "what the government appears to provide" there is of course a trap for the unwary. Be careful what you wish for.

London introduced a congestion charge of 5 pounds per day in February 2003 to reduce inner-city road traffic. When the charge was raised in 2005 to 8 pounds ($20), the mayor pointed out that "Ninety per cent of people entering the zone do so by public transport. This will build on what has already been achieved in terms of extended bus provision, and in due course by providing additional underground capacity"

With this captive community, the latest round of fare increases on London's public transport system will take the shortest tube journey to 4 pounds ($10) and the shortest bus journey to 2 pounds ($5).

The concept of one "winning out" over the other is unrealistic.

This is being apparently being discussed on the basis of either / or and not 'both'.

I live in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, I work in the CBD. I travel to work by public transport because for me the cost of parking in the CBD vastly exceeds the cost of public transport.

The fare is around $2.20 each way, the cost of petrol alone each way would be around a dollar, let alone the wear and tear on the vehicle, and the driver. It would take me around 20 minutes to drive each way, but the express bus that I catch, due to bus only lanes, takes about 30 minutes.

The vast majority of people travelling from the east into the CBD for work use public transport. If anything there is a greater demand for public transport than that which is catered for.

However, for shopping trips locally (say, 2.5k each way) I use the car, mainly for its load carrying capacity and convenience in going to where shopper parking is provided, and I use the car for cross city trips where public transport is not feasible.

For some journeys of up to 1.5k each way, I (shock, horror) walk.

For some journeys I use taxis, especially where other public transport is not feasible, but where I know parking will be difficult to find.

Each mode of transport has its advantages, and disadvantages, but also much depends on the area being serviced. I know that many people in Sydney's west complain about poor public transport, but insist in living in low density housing in battleaxe blocks.

You cannot have it both ways: either live in public transport friendly area, or live in an area which requires cars.

"In the case of urban change and the transport needs this brings, the US remains the best guide"

Having sat motionless for hours in hideous LA traffic, breathing in soupy thick smog, I am of the opinion that perhaps things aren't so peachy in the Good ol' US of A. Except for in the major cities, commuters are not offered a "choice" of transport options. The car is the be all and end all outside of city centres, and as such, the car has developed a special place in the American physce. And in the case of LA, despite an adequate rail system being in place, few people give up their cars.

There are a number of reasons for this, many of which have been mentioned by other posters. However, I believe it would do the city a world of good if the PT system was made more attractive. Australia is no different in this regard.