Topic split from Quiet Car thread - PT discussion

[#Metro]

This highlights one of the inherent problems of PT. It is a shared service, which means people of all different inclinations (in this case, quiet or noisy) are thrown together in one big sardine can and expected to get along and travel in comfort. And then of course you always have your inconsiderate people and your nuisance types. Which is most people in today's "I, me, mine" generation, who think about nothing but body image.

It can be a problem. But as people catch it, for many it is tolerable. Otherwise they have the option to freely go off and buy their own car or bicycle.
Roads are shared too. They have to share the space with cyclists, trucks and other road vehicles.
Sometimes, especially during peak hour, those 'other vehicles' get in the way and then congestion results.

And then you have people who cannot drive competently on the road. Hoons, people who cut you off at intersections and roundabouts, people who cannot merge competently or do not know how to give way properly, and of course, road-rage.

[Mobility]

This highlights one of the inherent problems of PT. It is a shared service, which means people of all different inclinations (in this case, quiet or noisy) are thrown together in one big sardine can and expected to get along and travel in comfort. And then of course you always have your inconsiderate people and your nuisance types. Which is most people in today's "I, me, mine" generation, who think about nothing but body image.

It can be a problem. But as people catch it, for many it is tolerable. Otherwise they have the option to freely go off and buy their own car or bicycle.
Roads are shared too. They have to share the space with cyclists, trucks and other road vehicles.
Sometimes, especially during peak hour, those 'other vehicles' get in the way and then congestion results.

And then you have people who cannot drive competently on the road. Hoons, people who cut you off at intersections and roundabouts, people who cannot merge competently or do not know how to give way properly, and of course, road-rage.

That's not the same thing. Cars share roads, but they are still independent and private vehicles. Of course members of a society share public spaces, including roads. The only way to avoid that is to go and live in the bush. There is a big difference between sharing the same road, neighborhood or shopping mall and being wedged tightly in a seat too small for many people's asses let alone elbow space, no leg room, knee to knee with and directly facing the person opposite you, with people you would walk around rather than go near in a shopping mall because they are too noisy, inconsiderate or smelly or you just don't want people right up in your personal space.

People tolerate it because, although they are free to travel by car instead, the road system is a shambles, making that option just as difficult in many ways. It's not "too many cars on the road" that makes them congested. At one location on the north side of Brisbane a roundabout at a five-way intersection was replaced by traffic lights. Right after that, traffic was backing up every day for streets behind it, which never happened before. Obviously the number of cars on the road was nothing to do with that. It is design and management of the road system which is at fault. A simple thing like coordination of traffic signals has been shown to greatly reduce road congestion.

The claim that it is "too many cars on the road" is just simplistic and superficial reasoning which most people don't question because it seems so obvious. And it is one which happens to suit the aims of our politicians, so nobody worth worrying about ever does question it. What government would not like to monopolise the control of a basic necessity such as travel.

[Gazza]

The claim that it is "too many cars on the road" is just simplistic and superficial reasoning which most people don't question because it seems so obvious. And it is one which happens to suit the aims of our politicians, so nobody worth worrying about ever does question it. What government would not like to monopolise the control of a basic necessity such as travel.

It's not simplistic. A car lane can comfortably carry one car every 2 seconds, so 1800 cars an hour, no way to get around that. Many of our major centres/destinations generate inflows of people such that providing roads wide enough, and enough space to store cars at the other end simply isn't realistic because of the land/resumptions/cost required.

I look at it purely from a geometrical/mathematical standpoint...



I see nothing wrong with people say driving to their local supermarket because it tends to be that there aren't and peaks in demand and the distances travelled are short, so it hardly pushes the limits of local 2 lane road networks, at least not where I live.

But people trying to drive to heavy trip generators like Universities and CBDs cause a lot of problems since its not possible to provide infrastructure that could cater to everyone coming by car, due to the sheer weight of numbers. In this case higher capacity modes of transport work better...And I think that's the key....

Mobility, you shouldn't have a bias against buses and trains and trams just because they are "PT" when it should really be about the best technology for the job.

It's like this. ....
Say I wanted to go to Perth and we were looking at ways of me getting there.
I could fly, drive, or take a hypothetical high speed train. In this case the plane is better than both the car and the high speed train because its so much faster than either could hope to be over the distance, so we could conclude that planes are the best way of moving people to Perth.

What if the task at hand were another transport task? Say moving freight to Perth? Or someone visiting their friend the next town over out in the bush? Or 60,000 people heading to a footy game? Or a family going to a local park?
No point fetishing a particular mode of transport, since you can clearly see that one solution wouldn't work for all cases.

So I guess where I'm going with this is that the people on R.B.o.T probably do see PT solutions as the best means to get people around the urban environments of SEQ, because they are the best solution for the task at hand, provided they are done properly.

To me, its not about eliminating car usage, since that will never happen, but rather providing PT good enough to mitigate the impacts cars have.

[#Metro]

To me, its not about eliminating car usage, since that will never happen, but rather providing PT good enough to mitigate the impacts cars have.

Well said, & agree.
There is even car sharing options for special applications... flexilink is car (taxi) too.

[Jonno]

I know that part of the discussion was off topic..but Mobility are you for real?  Your views have been proven to be totally wrong by research allaround the world.  Try using google and see what you find.  The only people who believe in your "views" are car manufacturers, road construction companies and engineers taught in the 1960's who have not read an indutry publication since.

[Mobility]

I know that part of the discussion was off topic..but Mobility are you for real?  Your views have been proven to be totally wrong by research allaround the world.  Try using google and see what you find.  The only people who believe in your "views" are car manufacturers, road construction companies and engineers taught in the 1960's who have not read an indutry publication since.

I don't base my views on the conclusions of studies, I use logic and first-hand experience. I've been relying on PT for 20 years. I think I am in a better position to judge than an academic or bureaucrat conducting a study funded by the government or the rail industry or both to get a desired result. I am sure research all around the world supports your views. Research all around the world also proves that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer. I expect you are also right that most people believe your views too. But popularity is not proof. All it may mean is that it is in the interests of powerful people for you to believe it. Also, as Samuel Johnson said, common sense tells us the earth is flat and the sun travels around the earth.

You mentioned the bias of car manufactures. The government is hardly a disinterested about having greater control over the personal travel of all individuals. If there is one thing governments hate, it's more personal independence and freedom. Travel is a very basic necessity for all people. Control travel, and you control just about every other type of activity.

I would like to know how many people at these forums rely on PT. Not use it when they can to make themselves feel better, I mean use it when it is both convenient and inconvenient to do so.

Many people I know who advocate PT drive cars everywhere. When I tell them PT is a less efficient mode of travel than cars they express great concern for my sanity. I ask them why they use cars if they are less efficient. They tell me they "have too much running around to do" because they have a demanding job and a family etc. I ask them again why that is a reason to use a less efficient form of transport and their response is that PT is less efficient now, but can be made more efficient and they are waiting for that to happen before they switch.

But because these people have never used PT - never relied on it for all of their travel needs - they don't have the first-hand experience necessary to judge whether PT actually can be made more efficient. The reality is that because PT is a shared service, it is inherently less convenient in almost all ways for all users. So strong is the propaganda that even this simple obvious fact doesn't ever occur to them.

[Mobility]

Using the above logic, perhaps I could argue that my seat on the bus was my individual seat, private and separate from the others. And I could further argue that the bus or train wasn't crowded because there were too many people, but simply because it was... too small! Perhaps it is?

If people don't want to drive on a government road- don't. I've heard the Clem 7 has plenty of space for those who choose to drive into it.

You could write your name on the damn seat and you would still be packed in there with 80 other people traveling to all the same places. Unlike roads, you cannot redesign a train or bus to be anything other than what it is, and still have just a train. Making it bigger would defeat the purpose of having one from the POV of fuel consumption and emissions.

[Mobility]

Mobility, you shouldn't have a bias against buses and trains and trams just because they are "PT" when it should really be about the best technology for the job.

I'm not biased against PT, I just don't believe it can serve as the main mode of transport for all of society.c For most jobs, it is not the best technology. And the reason is precisely "because it is PT" - i.e. a shared service, which for that reason is inherently a compromise in convenience for all users.

To me, its not about eliminating car usage, since that will never happen, but rather providing PT good enough to mitigate the impacts cars have.

To many PT advocates, providing good enough PT requires eliminating car usage or reducing it to an extent that which would make it ineffective. Simply because cars and PT compete for the same road space and space for infrastructure and facilities. And you are forgetting that one of the main reasons they do advocate PT is to (ideally) eliminate car usage, because PT is supposedly more fuel efficient and produces lower emissions per user.

[#Metro]

You could write your name on the damn seat and you would still be packed in there with 80 other people traveling to all the same places. Unlike roads, you cannot redesign a train or bus to be anything other than what it is, and still have just a train. Making it bigger would defeat the purpose of having one from the POV of fuel consumption and emissions.

If you hate it so much, go and buy a car!!!

I caught the bus this morning. It was brand new, air conditioned, window tinted and I had lots of space. Sorry. But it was good enough for me.
And the cheap price was good too. We have brand new trains running on the network as well and brand new ferries too.

Any mode of transport, whether car (on the road as congestion) or PT will be crowded at peak hour. That's just a fact of life.

[Jonno]

Mobility read my blogs on this site.  I have lived and worked in cities around this world where PT is the first mode of transport in a city.  I take PT at times when it is inconvient because it is better for us, our economy and our planet. You claims of efficiency are based on time efficiency in off peak mainly and in the absence of a truly functioning off-peak services. PT is the best form of transport in Peak hour easily.  That is based on experience and observation as well.

You need to look at the total cost of car use to society.  Tell the fsmilies of the 1600 that die in the road each year in Australia that it is the best form of transport. Car use looks more efficient because all the indirect costs are hidden and billions are spent trying to out build congestion.  

To be fair to you Doctors recommend smoking in the 50s so for some it takes longer to realize the reality of what they are seeing rather than the sexy advertising.

[Mobility]

If you hate it so much, go and buy a car!!!

I plan to, but I'm not going to rush into it. It is not that simple either - for a car to be a truly attractive option, we need better roads than we have now. Outside of peak times, however (as things are now), it is by far the best one.

I am not merely complaining about the inconveniences of PT here. That would be pointless, because those inconveniences are inherent in any communal service and cannot be eliminated. I am criticising PT because, despite those inconveniences, and in some cases in apparent ignorance of them, other people here advocate it as a main mode of travel for society, not just an option people may freely choose. If they succeed, buying a car will be no help.

I caught the bus this morning. It was brand new, air conditioned, window tinted and I had lots of space. Sorry. But it was good enough for me.

My experience is different. I think PT advocates are willing to overlook a lot for the sake of other benefits they believe PT will provide or objectives it will fulfill.

And the cheap price was good too. We have brand new trains running on the network as well and brand new ferries too.

You didn't pay just the cost of your fare for all that. And fares are now about to go up a second time, by 15%, and by 2014 will have risen by 175% (yes - I didn't leave out a decimal point there). It seems the previous 40% increase (for paper tickets) was not sufficient.

Fares go up again

GETTING around Brisbane w i l l soon cost more. Translink has announced fare increases for next year. Prices will rise 15 per cent in January 2011 with a onezone trip increasing from $2.30 to $2.65, going up 175 per cent to $4.04 by 2014.

These price increases will help fund 305,000 new weekly public transport seats this financial year, according to Transport Minister Rachel Nolan, but taxpayers are still fronting the majority of the cost for public transport, coughing up $3 for every $1 spent by a commuter.

This is a 35 per cent cost recovery, but in the next four years TransLink will be working towards a 30 per cent cost-recovery rate.
While paper tickets will remain they will be at a much higher cost with a singlezone ticket going up to $3.90.

Ms Nolan said travel on public transport remained cheaper than in Sydney and Melbourne. ''We've listened to the Community Reference Group, tourists and infrequent users who have told us they would prefer to be able to purchase a single-trip ticket at a station or onboard a bus or ferry, rather than an alternative go card,'' Ms Nolan said.

- Westside News, Brisbane, 24 Nov 2010.

Where does this end? They never tell you about this all at once - they tell you in steps, so you don't know where you are headed. Perhaps they don't know.

Any mode of transport, whether car (on the road as congestion) or PT will be crowded at peak hour. That's just a fact of life.

Maybe so, but it is also a fact of life that the government is incompetent at providing public works, so for cars the crowding is not an inherent feature.

[Mobility]

Mobility read my blogs on this site.  I have lived and worked in cities around this world where PT is the first mode of transport in a city.  I take PT at times when it is inconvient because it is better for us, our economy and our planet.

Shall do.

You claims of efficiency are based on time efficiency in off peak mainly and in the absence of a truly functioning off-peak services. PT is the best form of transport in Peak hour easily.  That is based on experience and observation as well.

This claim assumes that congestion has nothing to do with the suitability of the road system itself. Or you are assuming that the government has done it's best to provide a good road system.

You need to look at the total cost of car use to society.  Tell the fsmilies of the 1600 that die in the road each year in Australia that it is the best form of transport. Car use looks more efficient because all the indirect costs are hidden and billions are spent trying to out build congestion.

There are also fatalities and injuries due to rail and bus, especially light rail, because it uses the same streets as other vehicles. If you crash a bus, you endanger up to 60 passengers and because of the buses size the occupants of probably more than just one other vehicle. Trains also provide a good means of suicide, which QR employees tell me are a routine obstruction to services.

http://ti.org/vaupdate48.html

To be fair to you Doctors recommend smoking in the 50s so for some it takes longer to realize the reality of what they are seeing rather than the sexy advertising.

And then there are all those studies around the world. My point was that studies can be biased, so it doesn't matter how many studies there are proving something, you still have to look for ulterior motives. Governments can afford to fund a large number of studies, and there are governments all over the world - at least one in every country, in fact.

[Mobility]

It's not simplistic. A car lane can comfortably carry one car every 2 seconds, so 1800 cars an hour, no way to get around that. Many of our major centres/destinations generate inflows of people such that providing roads wide enough, and enough space to store cars at the other end simply isn't realistic because of the land/resumptions/cost required.

I look at it purely from a geometrical/mathematical standpoint...

The same publicity stunt was pulled in West End (Brisbane) by a "community" group called "Stop The Hale Street Bridge". Their caption was ":1 bus = 45 cars = 62 people". Problem with that is that BCC buses only seat 40 to 45 people. Apparently while they had the bus there for the photo, the organisers did not count the seats on the bus to arrive at that figure. Did they just make one up? Perhaps they added on 17 more for people standing in the aisle when it is crowded, but they did not explain that for other people who also probably have not counted the seats on BCC buses. If they had used on the number of seats, then the assumption would be that all 45 of those cars have only the driver in them, which is also not realistic. The photo and caption was on the front page of the local Quest "news" paper. Apparently the reporter also did not check the number of seats on the bus. Perhaps no reporter was present - the article did read as if they had just taken it from a fax of the press release, as do most Quest items on local events.

So to make buses seem attractive, PT advocates have to exaggerate figures. This is lying. They are supposed to be "grass roots" organisations advocating sincere solutions, yet they are lying to the community. What else are they lying about that we haven't discovered? The fact that they are propagandising the community means that hey are not "grass roots" community interest groups, but groups created to promote a minority agenda to the community.

Which just happens to be the government's own official agenda. I was at the City library about a year ago and over the PA a "sustainability community consultation" meeting was announced to be held that day. I went and asked a couple of staff about it and their response was "what is sustainability?". They looked it up on a library broshure of events. Other people I mention it to also don't know what it is. It is our government's official policy - it is organising meetings to promote it - yet most people, even government employees,  don't know what it is. The government have not told them what it is. Where did it come from, if not the Australian people?

It came to us from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, or Rio Earth Summit) in June 1992, which representatives of our government attended and helped draft. In other words, it came from outside of our country, not the communities inside of it; and it came from national and international elites, not "grass roots".

[Gazza]

^^Any chance of a thread split Ozbob? this is a worthy discussion in its own right...

Anyway, I've cropped the photo above to only show 44 cars (Buses regularly do carry more than 44 people, eg the routes to UQ, but I'll go along and assume there are no standing passengers)....The cars still take up much more road space than the bus don't they?


What about if all the cars had 5 people in them...It still takes up more roadspace. Have used an aerial image in this case to avoid the perspective distortion of the photo.