Peak Oil

[ozbob]

The price of oil is predicted to start a dramatic increase from next year.    This will have profound implications for many carbon based economies ....

More rail!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil  bit of background

[nocost]

Excellent point ozbob. Current fare structure can only increase private transport, thus making fossil fuel usage higher.
Personally Bob, I think public transport should should be free & frequent for all.

[Mobility]

Peak Oil is a complete fraud. Read this article and the other articles by the same author listed below it.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58682

[Mobility]

The price of oil is predicted to start a dramatic increase from next year.    This will have profound implications for many carbon based economies ....

More rail!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil  bit of background

I disagree that PT is more fuel efficient than cars. The logic behind this claim is that buses seat 45 people and trains seat 80 people per carriage whereas cars seat only five people. The unspoken assumption is that cars usually have only one or two occupants while buses and trains are always completely full. The reason this assumption is unspoken is that it is so very obviously untrue.

Trains and buses run roughly from 5 am to 11 pm, weekends as well as week days, at least every half hour, regardless of how many passengers there are at any given time. Even in peak times they are only full on inbound trips in the morning and outbound trips in the afternoon, and only for the section of those trips nearer to the city. I routinely see empty buses in the CBD in peak times. This all means that trains and buses very often carry a smaller percentage of their capacity than do cars with only the driver. And cars are not always only occupied by the driver, so that percentage for them can be double, triple or greater. But even just with the driver, 20% of the car's seating capacity is occupied, while a 45-seat bus with only (say) five passengers has just over 10% of it's seating occupied. Add to that, trains (especially) and buses are bigger and heavier than cars, having more weight per passenger.

Increase the frequency of PT services and the number of routes, and you further spread the number of users among individual services and further reduce the above percentages.

Another point to make is that for vehicles, the transport industry consumes 85% of the fuel and produces 85% of emissions. That leaves just 15% of fuel consumption and emissions due to other vehicle use - personal travel, business etc. So whatever trouble we go to to switch from cars to PT, it will only affect a very small portion of the emissions due to all types of vehicle use, i.e. those due to personal travel.  It can only ever reduce fuel consumption and emissions by some percentage much lower than 15%.

Considering the reduction in personal mobility and convenience, increase in travel time etc. switching to PT entails, the massive infrastructure changes required and the radical reorganisation of our mode of living which PT advocates say will ultimately be necessary to make PT viable as our main mode of travel (e.g. high-density urban living in place of suburban living), this means we are putting ourselves to a massive amount of trouble for a very small reduction of fuel use and emissions.

This raises the question, assuming the leaders of the sustainable development movement are as intelligent as I am and have spent twenty minutes just thinking about their claims, of what the real reason is for advocating switching to PT.

[Golliwog]

Peak Oil is a complete fraud. Read this article and the other articles by the same author listed below it.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58682

I couldn't even read the whole first article. Yes they found more oil (back in 2007 I might add) but that doesn't stop the fact that resources are not infinite! Yes we will probably continue finding more reserves as time goes on, but they will be harder to get to (meaning more expensive) and even so theres still only a limited supply. Theres only so much oil in the world, and once it runs out how do you intend on making more?

As for the emissions data you mention in the second post with 85% of use and emissions coming from transport, care to give a source for those figures? And if I'm not mistaken, the "transport industry" isn't just PT (does it even include PT?) the transport industry is goods transport both long and short distance, which is mostly done by truck which is far less efficient than by rail.

[#Metro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily

Yawn, its Op-Ed IMHO  

[Gazza]

Increase the frequency of PT services and the number of routes, and you further spread the number of users among individual services and further reduce the above percentages.

No, increasing services does not spread existing riders more thinly, rather it attracts more riders who would've otherwise been deterred by poor frequency. I don't have them to hand, but could Ozbob or someone pull up the stats that show the dramatic increases in patronage that came about as a result of the BUZ programme?

[#Metro]

http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/6058/1/thredbo10-themeA-Warren.pdf

This surely must be a RailBOT classic...

Oh, and the other thing is that, included in the operations, ALL BCC BUSES have all their CO2 offset.

[Mobility]

Peak Oil is a complete fraud. Read this article and the other articles by the same author listed below it.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58682

I couldn't even read the whole first article. Yes they found more oil (back in 2007 I might add) but that doesn't stop the fact that resources are not infinite! Yes we will probably continue finding more reserves as time goes on, but they will be harder to get to (meaning more expensive) and even so theres still only a limited supply. Theres only so much oil in the world, and once it runs out how do you intend on making more?

If you had read the whole article, and some of the others, you wouldn't be asking me those questions. Challenging your present views on the matter was sort of the reason I posted them.

For example, it appears that oil is a renewable resource, since it is now believed to come from other sources than fossilised organic matter, i.e. by ongoing chemical processes deep beneath ocean beds.

Yes of course oil is finite. So is air, so is water. Nobody talks about running out of those. The question is not whether it is finite, but how large the supply is compared to man's needs.

As oil recovery technology improves (and like most other technology it continually has) it becomes easier to extract previously hard or impossible deposits. The U.S. has as much oil as Saudi Arabia, but environmental legislation and the business machinations of some oil companies themselves prevent it from being extracted.

I expect that technology will advance to enable us to move on from reliance on oil for energy, just as we moved on from coal energy in the 19th century. When oil does run out, however far off that probably is, it's price will increase (gradually, not all at once after the final drop is sold, as many people imply it will) and cease to be economically viable at some point, leaving a market for the development of althernatives. It will also encourage improvements in efficiency of it's use. (That is already happening, even though the oil is not yet running out; e.g. car fuel efficiency has prgressively increased over the past few decades.)

As for the emissions data you mention in the second post with 85% of use and emissions coming from transport, care to give a source for those figures? And if I'm not mistaken, the "transport industry" isn't just PT (does it even include PT?) the transport industry is goods transport both long and short distance, which is mostly done by truck which is far less efficient than by rail.

The SBS Insight program, from a guest industry representative in the audience. Nobody challenged him. And yes I did mean the goods transport industry, as opposed to PT and cars, which are for personal travel and small business use. That was the point of my comment. Much of that is by rail. Rail transport can't deliver goods to the actual destination.

[Mobility]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily

Yawn, its Op-Ed IMHO  

And where do your opinions come from, down from the Mount? Judge it on it's arguments, not on it's genre.

[#Metro]

I use logic and first-hand experience.

[Jonno]

Yes of course oil is finite. So is air, so is water. Nobody talks about running out of those. The question is not whether it is finite, but how large the supply is compared to man's needs.

Are you even in the same plane of reality as me?  Air and water have 2 of our most efficient natural renewal system making sure there is enough.  Oil production took millions of years to create the little we have.  Nobody mention these for that reason.  Comparing the 2 is just lunacy? It beggars belief really. 

[Mobility]

Air and water have 2 of our most efficient natural renewal system making sure there is enough.  Oil production took millions of years to create the little we have.  Nobody mention these for that reason.  Comparing the 2 is just lunacy? It beggars belief really.  

My point was not that oil is as plentiful as water and air. My point was that the fact that a resource is finite does not mean that it is short supply or will be in the near future. I was criticising your logic.

And it appears that oil may be a renewable resource.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html

Are you even in the same plane of reality as me?

I'm not sure which plane that is. Maybe you just need to open your mind.

[Mobility]

I use logic and first-hand experience.

How much first-hand experience do you have with the oil industry? If the answer is none, then you should not limit your reading on the subject to whatever fits with what you think you already know.

[somebody]

Trains and buses run roughly from 5 am to 11 pm, weekends as well as week days, at least every half hour,

Not in Brisbane.

I disagree that PT is more fuel efficient than cars. The logic behind this claim is that buses seat 45 people and trains seat 80 people per carriage whereas cars seat only five people. The unspoken assumption is that cars usually have only one or two occupants while buses and trains are always completely full. The reason this assumption is unspoken is that it is so very obviously untrue.

While this is true, you aren't providing any evidence that PT is less fuel efficient.

Oil is thought to be non-renewable.  I do not believe reserves are extending at the same rate as consumption.  No doubt, it will become increasingly expensive to extract oil from the earth, but that is one of the least important reasons to have PT.

[Jonno]

Air and water have 2 of our most efficient natural renewal system making sure there is enough.  Oil production took millions of years to create the little we have.  Nobody mention these for that reason.  Comparing the 2 is just lunacy? It beggars belief really.  

My point was not that oil is as plentiful as water and air. My point was that the fact that a resource is finite does not mean that it is short supply or will be in the near future. I was criticising your logic.

And it appears that oil may be a renewable resource.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html

Are you even in the same plane of reality as me?

I'm not sure which plane that is. Maybe you just need to open your mind.

Very true that just because a resource is finite does not mean that it is short supply or will be in the near future.  The fact that demand is significantly outstriping the discover of new supply and the current supply is dwindling does though.  This is called Peak Oil.  Even the oil companies recognise this and know they are on a winner if the can keep the least efficient form of transport as the number 1 mode of transport.  Simple supply and demand. 

My mind is very very open which is why after much reading, discussions, investigation and listerning to the various sides of the argument I am a very big supporter of PT.  Your "observations" are coloured by very "road coloured galsses". But hey go on believing that the current approach is "working" whilst you travel at leass that 40km per hour on average and more and more taxes are wasted on fixing the problem. 

[#Metro]

Let's not forget our friends at OPEC, the international government cartel on oil prices!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC

Who is OPEC?

Algeria
Angola
Ecuador
Iran
Kuwait
Libya
Nigeria
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Venezuela

[Mobility]

Not in Brisbane.

For buses to the city, the timetable for my local service says:

6:05 am - 10:55 pm M-F,
7:20 am - 10:51 pm Sat,
7:40 am - 6;45 pm Sun

So yes I was quite a bit out with the start and stop times, though I recall another service I used years ago started soon after 5 am and some go after 11 pm. But my point is still valid: Buses and trains run frequently at times well outside of peak times, when they are often not needed by enough passengers to fill them even nearly to capacity.

While this is true, you aren't providing any evidence that PT is less fuel efficient.

No, but I discredited the main argument used by PT advocates that it is.

Oil is thought to be non-renewable.  I do not believe reserves are extending at the same rate as consumption.

You don't believe they are, but do you know they are not? Whether or not reserves are increasing at the rate of consumption, the reserves we know about are very large in comparison to demand.

No doubt, it will become increasingly expensive to extract oil from the earth, but that is one of the least important reasons to have PT.

That's not a problem, in fact it will be helpful, because increasing prices will cause oil to become economically unviable and stimulate developemtn of economic technology and energy sources. It happenned with coal, it will happen with oil. At the worst, we can use solar and wind.

What are the important reasons to have PT, if not Peak Oil and Climate Change? Is road congestion the primary one? I thought it was supposed to be all three. I hear climate change and peak oil constantly in connection with making PT the main mode of travel. I think that none of these reasons are the real ones.

[Jonno]

The main reason PT is the only solution to transport problems is the reality that every time road capacity is built we create the demand from the existing population.  People just decide to use the capacity because irbid there. Thus the solution is actually the cause.  The more they build the worse problems they create. Only a little is to do with population or economic growth.  Next is the hidden costs of road trauma and other externalities of road transport.  Both are just not economically sustainable and are sending our country broke.

Peak oil and CO2 may, if we are very lucky, be solved with new technologies but the reality above has no technological solution. Even so called smart highways only create additional capacity that will be filled.  It is a viscous circle.

[Mobility]

Very true that just because a resource is finite does not mean that it is short supply or will be in the near future.  The fact that demand is significantly outstriping the discover of new supply and the current supply is dwindling does though.  This is called Peak Oil.

That's begging the question and circular reasoning. "Peak Oil is valid because demand is outstripping discovery; demand is outstripping discovery because of Peak Oil." Peak Oil is what I am criticising.

Even the oil companies recognise this and know they are on a winner if the can keep the least efficient form of transport as the number 1 mode of transport.  Simple supply and demand.  

Is this just a theory which follows from your views, or do you know for a fact that the oil companies advocate cars over PT? Despite their great power it does not seem like they are winning. Somebody more powerful had got the whole world, except for cranks like me, believing that PT is superior to cars.

Maurice Strong is one of the wealthiest men on earth and that wealth was derived from the oil industry. It would not be controversial to say that he is on the side of the oil industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

Maurice Strong was the Secretary General of the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio, where Agenda 21 was drafted. Agenda 21 is one reason our governments have adopted Sustainable Development as official policy. Agenda 21 mentions PT as a more sustainable mode of transport. Governments are promoting, funding and cooperating with PT advocacy groups. In other words, the reason you advocate PT is largely because of Maurice Strong.

Rio was not a passing phase for Strong. He was also head of the 1972 UN Conference On Human Environment in Stockholm, he was the first Secretary General of the UN Environment Program, president of the World Federation of United Nations, co-chairman of the World Economic Forum, member of the pro-environmentalist Club of Rome, trustee of the pro-environmentalist Aspen Institute and a director of the World Future Sciety - all pro-environmentalist. Strong's statements on environmental matters are indistinguishable from radical environmentalist positions and like yourself he considers cars a threat to the environment and energy resources.

Would you believe that among the leading members all those elite groups, Strong is not the only member of the corporate elite?

Given a choice between monopolising sales of oil and selling more oil, regardless of which has the bigger returns, they would take the monopoly. Transfering the means of travel from the individual (cars) to the government (PT) gives the largest corporations a greater chance of obtaining a monopoly, since it is large corporations which governments deal with - (1) because government services are provided on a large scale and (2) because large corporations are the highest bidder in terms of kickbacks for government officials. (Notice how politicians seem to move to corporate directorships after they leave office?) Making PT the main mode of travel would create a captive market for the large corporations contracted by government to provide it. The government would use our money, confiscated from us through taxes, to pay for their oil, their vehicles, their construction works, etc.

John Rockefeller was once asked what form of government he advocated. His answer was socialism. For major corporations, socialist governments are so much easier to do business with. They only have to talk to one person.

My mind is very very open which is why after much reading, discussions, investigation and listerning to the various sides of the argument I am a very big supporter of PT.

Your responses indicate to me that there are some sides you have not been exposed to. Not your fault - they are greatly suppressed, or if that is impossible, ridiculed, in the media. That is why you need an open mind. But not only an open mind - you need to search, since sound views are often the ones which are suppressed or officially ridiculed. Some alternative views are erroneous and are marginalised because they deserve to be. Others are marginalised precisely because the truth inevitably gets in the way of the interest of powerful people.

These views are not going to be delivered to your front door or your living room each day. No "grass-roots community group" advocating such views is going to get government funding and promotion and frequent plugs in your local Murdoch-owned "community" paper, which is the main way you hear about them.

You cannot say that you have heard all views, therefore you should not be so quick to ridicule the views of others, as you have mine.

Your "observations" are coloured by very "road coloured galsses". But hey go on believing that the current approach is "working" whilst you travel at leass that 40km per hour on average and more and more taxes are wasted on fixing the problem.  

The approach I advocate is not the one currently being implemented. As I need to keep repeating, the government is not providing adequate roads. I would even say that the government is deliberately sabotaging our roads in order to create support for PT. At the very least it is being sabotaged by common incompetence and corruption, which is inherent in government.

So you can't criticise my views by describing what is actually happening with our roads. We can do a lot better than 40 km/h. By your logic, we should abandon PT because of it's current failings.

And I do believe that it's current failings are unchangeable by any approach. You can provide ten train and bus routes through every suburb and increase the frequency of services to every 30 seconds (both of which would be prohibitively expensive) and move everyone out of the suburbs and into multilevel buildings in a smaller area (not a desirable mode of living in itself) - the basic, inherent failings of PT will not be eliminated. No bus or train will pull up outside your house on demand and take you straight to any desired address in a single trip with no stops in-between. Trains and buses will not provide space for any large items you need to carry with you - they would need to be made twice as large. They will never be efficient in terms of fuel consumption and emissions per passenger-mile, because they will be following a set schedule regardless of the number of passengers using them at any given time, even in peak hours - in trips in the direction counter-demand and further from the city.

These are the simple, inherent, irreducible and axiomatic features of any communal/shared transport service and they make the average PT trip as slow as that for cars now.

[#Metro]

By your own arguments, you should drive a car. Why then are you still catching public transport?
And if the roads are so bad, why don't you move closer to where you work?

[Jonno]

Mobility please list for me all the cities in the world that have been able to build enough road spaces so they don't have congestion (and not just a temporary single 1km improvement)  If your theory that we can build enough road space is correct you should be able to produce a long list of cities that have reduced congestion by build roads only.   Look forward to your answer.

Next list the cities that have reduced congestion and a break down of their investment in public transport. The  answer will surprise you.

Do the reseach and prove yourself rather attack those suggest the current approach is not working!

[Jonno]

Very true that just because a resource is finite does not mean that it is short supply or will be in the near future.  The fact that demand is significantly outstriping the discover of new supply and the current supply is dwindling does though.  This is called Peak Oil.

That's begging the question and circular reasoning. "Peak Oil is valid because demand is outstripping discovery; demand is outstripping discovery because of Peak Oil." Peak Oil is what I am criticising.

Even the oil companies recognise this and know they are on a winner if the can keep the least efficient form of transport as the number 1 mode of transport.  Simple supply and demand.  

Is this just a theory which fits your views, or do you know for a fact that the oil companies advocate cars over PT? Despite their it does not seem like they are winning. Somebody's got the whole world, except for cranks like me, believing that PT is superior to cars.

Maurice Strong is one of the wealthiest men on earth and that wealth was derived from the oil industry. It would not be controversial to say that he is on the side of the oil industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

Maurice Strong was the Secretary General of the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio, where Agenda 21 was drafted. Agenda 21 is one reason our governments have adopted Sustainable Development as official policy. Agenda 21 mentions PT as a more sustainable mode of transport. Governments are promoting, funding and cooperating with PT advocacy groups. In other words, the reason you advocate PT is largely because of Maurice Strong.

Rio was not a passing phase for strong. He was also head of the 1972 UN Conference On Human Environment in Stockholm, he was the first Secretary General of the UN Environment Program, president of the World Federation of United Nations, co-chairman of the World Economic Forum, member of the pro-environmentalist Club of Rome, trustee of the pro-environmentalist Aspen Institute and a director of the World Future Sciety - all pro-environmentalist. Strong's statements on environmental matters are indistinguishable from radical environmentalist positions and like yourself he considers cars a threat to the environment and energy resources.

Would you believe that among the leading members all those elite groups, Strong is not the only member of the corporate elite?

You are assuming that the oil companies (and monopolists in all industries) care more about monopolisation than volume of sales or size of profits. Given a choice between monopolising sales of oil and selling more oil, regardless of which has the bigger returns, they would take the monopoly. Transfering the means of travel from the individual (cars) to the government (PT) gives the largest corporations a greater chance of obtaining a monopoly, since it is large corprations which governments deal with - (1) because government services are provided on a large scale and (2) because large corporations are the highest bidder in terms of kickbacks for government officials. (Notice how politicians seem to move to corporate directorships after they leave office?) Making PT the main mode of travel would create a captive market for the large corporations contracted by government to provide it.

John Rockefeller was once asked what form of government he advocated. His answer was socialism. For a major corporation, ocialist countries are so much easier to do business with. They only have to talk to one person.

My mind is very very open which is why after much reading, discussions, investigation and listerning to the various sides of the argument I am a very big supporter of PT.

Your responses indicate to me that there are some sides you have not been exposed to. Not your fault - they are greatly suppressed, or if that is impossible, ridiculed, in the media. That is why you need an open mind. But not only an open mind - you need to search, since sound views are often the ones which are suppressed or officially ridiculed. Some alternative views are erroneous and are marginalised because they deserve to be. Others are marginalised precisely because the truth inevitably gets in the way of the interest of powerful people.

These views are not going to be delivered to your front door or your living room each day. No "grass-roots community group" advocating such views is going to get government funding and promotion and frequent plugs in your local Murdoch-owned "community" paper, which is the main way you hear about them.

You cannot say that you have heard all views, therefore you should not be so quick to ridicule the views of others, as you have mine.

Your "observations" are coloured by very "road coloured galsses". But hey go on believing that the current approach is "working" whilst you travel at leass that 40km per hour on average and more and more taxes are wasted on fixing the problem.  

The approach I advocate is not the one currently being implemented. As I need to keep repeating, the government is not providing adequate roads. I would even say that the government is deliberately sabotaging our roads in order to create support for PT. At the very least it is being sabotaged by common incompetence and corruption, which is inherent in government.

So you can't criticise my views by describing what is actually happening with our roads. We can do a lot better than 40 km/h. By your logic, we should abandon PT because of it's current failings.

And I do believe that it's current failings are unchangeable by any approach. You can provide ten train and bus routes through every suburb and increase the frequency of services to every 30 seconds (both of which would be prohibitively expensive) and move everyone out of the suburbs and into multilevel buildings in a smaller area (not a desirable mode of living in itself) - the basic, inherent failings of PT will not be eliminated. No bus or train will pull up outside your house on demand and take you straight to any desired address in a single trip with no stops in-between. Trains and buses will not provide space for any large items you need to carry with you - they would need to be made twice as large. They will never be efficient in terms of fuel consumption and emissions per passenger-mile, because they will be following a set schedule regardless of the number of passengers using them at any given time, even in peak hours - in trips in the direction counter-demand and further from the city.

These are the simple, inherent, irreducible and axiomatic features of any communal/shared transport service and they make the average PT trip as slow as that for cars now.

You are seriously delusional.  The failings you outline above are in fact benefits such as walking to the station, meeting new people, being part of a community. Not every trip involves large items and they can be delivered or in those rarer cases the car can be used.  This is different to using the car for every single trip.  So what if a trip involves a transfer or is indirect.  On the big scale of life...whoopie!!!   The government can NEVER provide adequate road capacity because every time road capacity is added people change their travel behaviour to fill it.  This is pure and simple. 

[Mobility]

By your own arguments, you should drive a car. Why then are you still catching public transport?
And if the roads are so bad, why don't you move closer to where you work?

It's nothing to do with whether or not I drive a car. I am not arguing that nobody should use PT, I am arguing that PT is not suitable for everyone to use as their main mode of travel. I am not happy using PT and I do plan to buy a car when I find a suitable vehicle at a low enough price. However, there are a few things which discourage me from owning a car, such as not having good roads to drive one on, which is the main reason. But as I am arguing here, that is not the fault of cars. The faults I find with PT are inherent to PT. I do believe that potentially - and there is real potential - owning a car is a better option, even a necessary one, for most people. Talking to people who own cars has informed me of how difficult that has been made by our blood-sucking nanny government.

It's ironic that while you are saying "so go buy a car" you are at the same time advocating a society in which that option would be practically closed to most people, since according to leading PT advocates that is what would be necessary for PT to be improved and made more viable.

As for moving closer to work - I should not have to. I cannot buy a new house every time I change jobs or my job changes location.

[Mobility]

Mobility please list for me all the cities in the world that have been able to build enough road spaces so they don't have congestion (and not just a temporary single 1km improvement)  If your theory that we can build enough road space is correct you should be able to produce a long list of cities that have reduced congestion by build roads only.   Look forward to your answer.

Next list the cities that have reduced congestion and a break down of their investment in public transport. The  answer will surprise you.

Do the reseach and prove yourself rather attack those suggest the current approach is not working!

Okay, you just put your feet up while I take a couple of years to do all that. Hopefully at the end of it you'll have time to read through all my findings and detailed supporting proofs. Don't you bother getting up to look for figures to support your own views. I'll run back and forth with evidence upon evidence while you sit back and reject it each time as not being conclusive enough or disinformation from the oil and automobile industries.

You are the one who is advocating transforming our society to make a major, radical switch in main mode of travel so the onus is on you to properly justify your position. The enormous inconveniences and economic inefficiency your plan would entail requires that it be well justified by reliable facts. I have already presented enough points and arguments to raise questions in any intelligent person's mind and you have responded to only a few of them, and I wouldn't call even those genuine responses - more like a litany to ward off intrusive original thoughts.

Just because cities can provide roads which are free of congestion does not mean that even one city in the world has actually done so. Most likely none have, because of the realities of government and globally prevailing ideologies like your own. But I have read of instances in which some policies have worked to alleviate congestion. An example is a city in the U.S. in which traffic lights were coordinated to allow better traffic flow. It is not merely the number of cars which causes congestion, it is how easily the road system permits traffic to flow.

[Mobility]

You are seriously delusional.  The failings you outline above are in fact benefits such as walking to the station, meeting new people, being part of a community.

I'm sorry that your only social outlet is commuting with work, but that's not real community or socialising. Most people are able to make aquaintances in other settings and prefer to socialise with whom we choose, not those with whom we are merely thrown together with by circumstances. We have friends and relatives. We do other things - things we actually like, and we meet other people who like them too. We socialise when we choose to.

What you are doing is making a virtue out of necessity. You want PT to address climate change, peak oil and road congestion etc. but to counter these negative reasons with some positive spin you imagine that it is social, healthy, relaxing etc etc. (You know how many fat people I see on PT? Some of those people should be paying double fare for their extra weight and for taking up two seats. Personally I get enough exercise in the eight hours I work each day.)

On trains and buses, when they are not full, everyone spreads out to equal and maximum distances from one another. If half full, every double seat has one person in it. When forced to sit beside one another, they take turns looking out the window or hold a book or newspaper to their faces. People naturally guard their personal space from strangers and also do not like to impose on others, respecting their possible wish to be left alone. Just penning a crowd of people into one enclosed space does not create a social situation. That is not what socialising is.

Not every trip involves large items and they can be delivered or in those rarer cases the car can be used.  This is different to using the car for every single trip.

The problem is you often don't know which trip is going to involve lugging things before you leave. I am not talking about refrigerators and big-screen TV sets. Smaller items than that, or a large number of separate items, can also be cumbersome yet not justify phoning a courier. Just today I went to a garage sale and bought a VCR, battery charger, phonograph and a DVD player. I did not request the people I bought them from to deliver them for me. I had to make two trips by foot to the other side of my suburb to my house. It took some time.

However, I am not saying this is a reason for using a car for every trip. The reason for that is simply that it is faster. Sometimes a bus or train may be more convenient, but not often for many people. Commuting to work by train and bus suits many people, but (hopefully) not all of our traveling is for work, and travel to other places is likely not be convenient..

So what if a trip involves a transfer or is indirect.  On the big scale of life...whoopie!!!

Travel is a basic necessity of life. If it takes double the time (and I'm being generous there), there is that much less time for the rest of your daily life - such as the things you had to travel to do in the first place. There is less life - the extra time cuts into your life. You may as well say "so my boss asked me to work back a couple of hours each day for no pay - whoopee!" I have to spend ten minutes each day waiting at a noisy busway station or train station, or standing at a bus stop, after working hard all day - whoopee! Walking to a bus or train stop, waiting, watching for your bus so you can hail it, standing around, working out timetables to coordinate your trip - it all adds up to a lot of extra stress. The joy from all that gre-e-a-at socialising you get to do is soon canceled out by all that extra mental and physical work.

Let me draw it for you. I take about 50 minutes to travel home from a college I attend in the evening once a week. Increasing the frequency of the service would not greatly reduce that time. 10 minutes of it is the walk to the station. Another 10 minutes is the walk home from the station at the other end. 15 minutes of it is the train trip. Only 15 minutes of it is the wait for the train, which goes half-hourly.

When someone gives me a lift home from there in their car, the total trip time is 10 minutes. So on the large scale of life - whoopee! - there goes my whole godamn day on PT. There goes my life.

The government can NEVER provide adequate road capacity because every time road capacity is added people change their travel behaviour to fill it.  This is pure and simple.  

So every time another length of car space becomes free, somebody finds another couple of hours in their day for some activity across town they have to travel to by car. Or by some strange mechanism science hasn't explained, the birth rate goes up in response to this. Or maybe they just like to drive around for no other reason?

And this process continues on and on - more roads, more cars, more roads, even more cars - until one day there are only roads, and no houses, with everyone just driving around continually, with no destination and no fixed home address.

No, the reason that behavior changes in response to road improvements is merely that before it was improved, it was inadequate - which was the reason for improving it. Because it was inadequate, people drove less than they would really like to. After the roads were improved, they drove as much as they liked to, which is more than they did before the improvements. It does not follow that they would then start driving more than they would like to so that the roads have to be improved beyond meeting the real demand.

And when road space does increase, it encroaches upon land which can be occupied by buildings. The fewer or smaller buildings become, the less reason there is for people to travel - on roads. That's the reason people travel, to get from one address to another. If there is no address, there is no trip. So at some point an equilibrium is struck between road space and the space for buildings. The same goes for other facilities like parking space and multilevel parking facilities. Parking space in say the CBD doesn't go on increasing the more people want to visit the CBD. The more they displace other buildings, the less reason there is for people to want to go there, or the more prohibitively crowded the remaining destinations become.

Also, improving roads does not necessarily mean building more roads, It means building a better designed road system. For instance, more direct routes between places which a lot of traffic travels between, so that unnecessary traffic is taken off of roads through other areas which provide less direct routes. I could be better coordination of traffic signals, which requires no new roads.

[Mobility]

The main reason PT is the only solution to transport problems is the reality that every time road capacity is built we create the demand from the existing population.  People just decide to use the capacity because irbid there. Thus the solution is actually the cause.  The more they build the worse problems they create. Only a little is to do with population or economic growth.  Next is the hidden costs of road trauma and other externalities of road transport.  Both are just not economically sustainable and are sending our country broke.

Peak oil and CO2 may, if we are very lucky, be solved with new technologies but the reality above has no technological solution. Even so called smart highways only create additional capacity that will be filled.  It is a viscous circle.

So economic growth is sending us broke? Put your analyst on danger money now, baby. Economic growth is merely increase in standard of living from increase in individual  prosperity and technical advancement. It does not mean everything becomes physically bigger and eventually covers the whole earth and drowns us all. In fact, many things become physically smaller and more efficient with technical advancement. I don't know what "road trauma" is. How do roads traumatise people? Are you talking about road accidents?

[ozbob]

Road trauma is the injury and death as a result of motor vehicle crashes essentially.  Have a read here --> http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Publications/TheCostofRoadCrashesReport.pdf

It is a major millstone around the neck of society.


A reminder, RAIL Back On Track is a group that is interested in advancing rail and public transport.

"There are no qualifications for membership other than an interest in rail transport solutions and/or public transport and a desire to see improved rail transport outcomes for the community."   http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=258.0

Improved rail transport outcomes is dependent on improved public and active transport as well, for example proper feeder bus networks and adequate bicycle facilities at stations.  On that basis you may wish to review your participation on this message board Mobility as it would appear you are not in the general spirit of this message board or what we promote.

[Jonno]

Thank you Mobility.  Your unsubstantiated propositions for supporting non-PT solutions and left field replys to clear PT propositions have highlighted how to support the continuation of road construction as a solution to our transport problems is clearly illogical and at best "crazy".

Your replys should be used to train our future transport planners by showing them how loopy you have to be to support a road-centric transport system.  Your contribution is to be rewarded.

[#Metro]

Jonno is not engaging in "circular reasoning". He is simply assigning a name to an idea. That is not circular reasoning, that is merely a description of something by a name.

Public Transport is not a perfect substitute for car travel. However it is a substitute that people will use and catch.
As cities grow and become larger it becomes harder to accommodate travel using a car-only transport system.
By all means, if you want your own 4 wheels or there is some reason that you cannot take PT or a bicycle or walk
then get a car. Nothing wrong with that.

It's ironic that while you are saying "so go buy a car" you are at the same time advocating a society in which that option would be practically closed to most people, since according to leading PT advocates that is what would be necessary for PT to be improved and made more viable.

As for moving closer to work - I should not have to. I cannot buy a new house every time I change jobs or my job changes location.

Its not ironic at all. I'm not a leading "PT advocate" I am a commuter and user of public transport. You are talking to a PT user here, not some academic. A city will always need public transport, active transport (walking and cycling) and roads for cars and trucks. I find it fanciful that the government and those who want better services are portrayed as if they were part of some stereotype and grand conspiracy.

Moblility, it is pretty obvious why you catch public transport, despite a litany of complaints (which would be better directed to the Minister for Main Roads and the Department of Transport in my humble opinion, rather than this website). Simply put, you cannot afford to own a car right now, you want the choice and time to choose one, you have to save for one, the road conditions are obviously not to your liking, no matter whatever the cause for those might be, and congestion gets into your way.

Travel is a basic need. That's why the government provides a service that allows people the means to move around even though other people can afford to move around in their own personal car. Some people, including myself, have their own personal and private bicycle. Other people are too young to have their license or too old to drive or have a disability preventing them to do so, for some people they have been disqualified from driving due to their personal irresponsibility. For some, the costs of car ownership are simply prohibitive. A Toyota Prius is $40 000, to buy AIUI, and I just cannot afford that or the operational cost that would entail, and it seems that you, despite what you might say, fall into that category too.

I am unconvinced by your "price is right" argument advanced as a reason why you don't get a car. If that is your needs, then go and buy one. There are cars that are $2000 - $5000, second hand cars, but I refuse to buy or drive them because they are lemons, are unreliable, have high maintainence and insurance costs and are downright dangerous if you ask me. I also cannot afford to operate something like that in terms of paying for petrol. And I am glad, I can spend more money on me and my life rather than a special tonne or so of metal and machinery just for my personal transport. I would rather share a PT vehicle with someone else and split the cost with them thank you.

Simply put, you catch PT as an option of last resort under the circumstances that face you. While not everybody is in such a cirumstance and It may not be the nicest experience for you, it at least affords you some basic level of personal mobility that you would otherwise not have.

[#Metro]

Change is welling up in the basement...

Wrong way
Confessions of a recovering engineer

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-22-confessions-of-a-recovering-engineer

An engineer designing a street or road prioritizes the world in this way, no matter how they are instructed:

   1. Traffic speed
   2. Traffic volume
   3. Safety
   4. Cost

The rest of the world generally would prioritize things differently, as follows:

   1. Safety
   2. Cost
   3. Traffic volume
   4. Traffic speed

In other words, the engineer first assumes that all traffic must travel at speed. Given that speed, all roads and streets are then designed to handle a projected volume. Once those parameters are set, only then does an engineer look at mitigating for safety and, finally, how to reduce the overall cost (which at that point is nearly always ridiculously expensive).

In America, it is this thinking that has designed most of our built environment, and it is nonsensical. In many ways, it is professional malpractice. If we delivered what society asked us for, we would build our local roads and streets to be safe above all else. Only then would we consider what could be done, given our budget, to handle a higher volume of cars at greater speeds.

We go to enormous expense to save ourselves small increments of driving time. This would be delusional in and of itself if it were not also making our roads and streets much less safe. I'll again reference a 2005 article from the APA Journal showing how narrower, slower streets dramatically reduce accidents, especially fatalities.

And it is that simple observation that all of those supposedly "ignorant" property owners were trying to explain to me, the engineer with all the standards, so many years ago. When you can't let your kids play in the yard, let alone ride their bike to the store, because you know the street is dangerous, then the engineering profession is not providing society any real value. It's time to stand up and demand a change.

[somebody]

Thank you Mobility.  Your unsubstantiated propositions for supporting non-PT solutions and left field replys to clear PT propositions have highlighted how to support the continuation of road construction as a solution to our transport problems is clearly illogical and at best "crazy".

Your replys should be used to train our future transport planners by showing them how loopy you have to be to support a road-centric transport system.  Your contribution is to be rewarded.

Pure gold, Jonno!

[#Metro]

Mains Road and Sandgate road already have traffic signal co-ordination, and yet they remain congestion thoroughfares.

Acting Premier Paul Lucas and Brisbane Deputy Mayor and Infrastructure Chair Cr Graham Quirk today announced Sandgate Road and Mains Road would follow pilot site Moggill Road in having their traffic signals synchronised under the Department of Main Roads' STREAMS technology.

"Motorists travelling along Sandgate Road on Brisbane's northside and Mains Road through Sunnybank and Macgregor on the southside will be the first to benefit from this city-wide roll-out of STREAMS," Mr Lucas said.
"Both of these roads are extremely busy, with Sandgate Road carrying up to 55,000 vehicles per day and up to 38,000 vehicles per day using Mains Road.

The purpose-built nerve centre officially opened last year and now controls movement across some 6500km of metropolitan roads through advanced software such as STREAMS.
The move to single system control of Brisbane's traffic lights is one of a number of "congestion busting" measures announced by the Queensland Government in recent months.

In late August, Premier Anna Bligh announced three new significant incident response initiatives for state-controlled roads – the introduction of two new heavy duty tow trucks, the establishment of specialised police patrols during peak times and new "Open Roads" legislation that will provide for quicker clearance of stationary vehicles and spilt cargo.

http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/mms/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=60402
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Linked_Intersection_Signal_System

Looks like the options are exhausting...

[Golliwog]

The problem with synchronised traffic lights is that its easy (well, relatively) to do for a single corridor, but once you get closer to hte CBD where you have more and mroe corridors crossing and intersecting its harder to sychronise BOTH sides. Again, its good logic, but theres only so much it can do practically, but it does help with the goal of 'sweating' the corridor (ie: getting the most out of it).

[Mobility]

Road trauma is the injury and death as a result of motor vehicle crashes essentially.  Have a read here --> http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Publications/TheCostofRoadCrashesReport.pdf

It is a major millstone around the neck of society.

The name and logo of the Australasian Railway Association is placed right at the top of that report. I'll assume, because the report does not tell, that this means they are the ones who commissioned LECQ to write it. From the ARA website:

Our goal is to illustrate the positive impact that railways have on the economy, society and environment of Australia and New Zealand.

We represent the interests of all rail operators, both private and government, track owners and managers, manufacturers of rollingstock and components, and other aspects of the rail industry in Australasia.


If I referenced a report commissioned by the auto or oil industry your criticism of it would go no further than that. This is just another case of trying to restrict car travel to bring it down to the level of slowness and inconvenience inherent to public transport, cycling and walking, to give those modes better advantage. It's a way of avoiding admitting the superiority of car travel, by thinking up reasons to lower that superiority, to turn it from a positive into a supposed negative.

Accidents will happen and it is pointless trying to eliminate them altogether by shutting down any kind of activity involving risk, because all activity involves risk. Reducing car speeds and size pose risks of their own in some situations.

As for comparing accident risks with autos and PT: Let's say most people switch from using cars to using PT. Now there are many buses and trains, on many routes with frequent services. There are going to be some accidents. There are accidents now. Just about a year ago a train derailed on the Caboolture line because the driver took a curve to quickly. Did he "overestimate his driving ability"? When there are more trains and buses running, the statistics will be higher than now.

The train is a heavy vehicle, far heavier than the one the report is criticising, and carries a far greater number of occupants at one time. It would also be capable of taking out a far larger number of bystanders or other vehicles than an auto. This factor will add greatly to the statistics as compared to those now for cars.

There is another risk factor with PT. PT is run by the government, i.e. all by the same gang - it is centrally owned and run. If it were to be our main mode of travel, it would therefore be practically a monopoly on personal travel. One of the evils of a monopoly is that the person selling the goods is not accountable to the buyers. Are fares too high? Are the services poorly run? Is their safety neglected? Well if you don't like it, go buy somewhere else, ha ha ha. There's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Like I said, you can only reduce risk so far until it is just a question of which way you want to die.

[Mobility]

[

A reminder, RAIL Back On Track is a group that is interested in advancing rail and public transport.

"There are no qualifications for membership other than an interest in rail transport solutions and/or public transport and a desire to see improved rail transport outcomes for the community."   http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=258.0

Improved rail transport outcomes is dependent on improved public and active transport as well, for example proper feeder bus networks and adequate bicycle facilities at stations.  On that basis you may wish to review your participation on this message board Mobility as it would appear you are not in the general spirit of this message board or what we promote.

Then my solutions are not the same as your solutions, and your improved outcomes are not my improved outcomes. That does not mean that I do not want solutions and improved outcomes. I simply do not share your assumptions. Perhaps it is you who needs to review yours. Or if you wish to exclude people of other views from your board, perhaps you need to review your criteria for membership.

What other people decide produces the best outcome, if implemented, will affect me. Therefore it is in my interests to join the discussion on what produces the best outcomes. Other people's ideas may not in fact produce good outcomes. They may be very bad outcomes. But if you wish to discuss solutions over in your corner, I am happy to discuss my own solutions elsewhere. However, in your thread "Welcome to Rail - Back On Track" you say: "Passengers, concerned citizens, anyone who is interested in Australian railway solutions is most welcome to register and join in the debate!" I took this to mean you welcome debate.

I tend to prefer buses to trains as a PT solution, for reasons which I will not go into right here. That is another interest I have in this debate. Another reason I am interested in PT and active transport is that I pay for them, so I should see that they are built, managed and run properly, as well as see that more money than is necessary is not spent on them. I do not believe that currently to be the case.

Do you not believe that my arguments have not raised any important questions for all sides to consider? Or are you telling me to go elsewhere because you want to sidestep my arguments? Because I don't think anyone has satisfactorily addressed my arguments. If you are sure that my arguments are unimportant or wrong, they could instead be easily dismissed merely by logic.

I believe my comments have been sincere and logical ones. I did not come here to p%ss in the pond or to barrack with mere slogans and propaganda.

You characterise yourselves as a "community group", i.e. one which represents the interests of the community. But the community is not all of one mind. It is made up of individuals of varying and even opposing opinions on any given issue, public transport being one of them. If RBOT formed to represent the views of the community, then you must welcome the views of all members of the community. If instead you are a minority interest group formed to influence the community to accept  your own views, you csnnot honestly say that you represent the views of the community. You can say that you represent the interests of the community, according to what you view those interests to be, but that is not the same thing as representing everybody else's views of what is in the interests of the community. If you are just a lobbying group, that does not qualify you as a community group in the way that most people understand the term. So perhaps you need to review your conception of your organisation.

Since RBOT is working to shape the views of the community and have it's views implemented in the community, probably with some funding from the govenment, which all of us paid for, it is proper that all memebers of the community, of all views, be able to speak on your board.

[Mobility]

Thank you Mobility.  Your unsubstantiated propositions for supporting non-PT solutions and left field replys to clear PT propositions have highlighted how to support the continuation of road construction as a solution to our transport problems is clearly illogical and at best "crazy".

Your replys should be used to train our future transport planners by showing them how loopy you have to be to support a road-centric transport system.  Your contribution is to be rewarded.

If my comments were really unsubstantiated and illogical as you say, you would be able to respond to them with something besides ridicule and concern for sanity, or implying that I am merely biased with catch=prhases such as "road colored glasses" and "road-centric". That is all you appear to do, other than parroting the standard pro-PT line, which you characterise as "clear PT propositions".

My comments are not illogical just because you say they are illogical. That is not an argument or a valid response. You have to say why they are illogical. If your mind is made up and you don't wish to discuss the issue, perhaps you should not be posting at a discussion forum at all. You are also criticising my replies for being "left field". In other words, if you haven't previously heard of it, it can't be right.

Is this an example of the "much reading, discussions, investigation and listening to the various sides of the argument" which led to your support of PT? Or do you think you have done enough of that so you can now stop and pontificate to others instead? Are you a world-class expert now? Have you searched every corner of the globe for the most minority or marginalised views on the matter, which are yet still possibly - even likely - sound ones? Have you heard mine before now? Your responses indicate to me that you have not, because your arguments show that you are not familiar with them.

[Mobility]

Jonno is not engaging in "circular reasoning". He is simply assigning a name to an idea. That is not circular reasoning, that is merely a description of something by a name.

The comment I criticised was this:

"Very true that just because a resource is finite does not mean that it is short supply or will be in the near future.  The fact that demand is significantly outstriping the discover of new supply and the current supply is dwindling does though.  This is called Peak Oil."

I was questioning Peak Oil - the notion that demand is outstripping supply. Here Jonno replied that demand is outstripping supply because the notion Peak Oil supports it. And Peak Oil is nothing but the notion that demand is outstripping supply, Circular reasoning.

Public Transport is not a perfect substitute for car travel. However it is a substitute that people will use and catch.
As cities grow and become larger it becomes harder to accommodate travel using a car-only transport system.
By all means, if you want your own 4 wheels or there is some reason that you cannot take PT or a bicycle or walk
then get a car. Nothing wrong with that.

That is one of the notions that I am questioning. Despite what you personally think, "sustainable transport" advocates generally say that there is something wrong with using a car instead of "public and active" transport. Furthermore, they know that left with a free choice, most people would choose cars and that therefore laws and other restrictions need to be made to discourage choosing that option. It is clear that many on this board feel this way. It is the reason for this thread on Peak Oil.

Its not ironic at all. I'm not a leading "PT advocate" I am a commuter and user of public transport. You are talking to a PT user here, not some academic. A city will always need public transport, active transport (walking and cycling) and roads for cars and trucks. I find it fanciful that the government and those who want better services are portrayed as if they were part of some stereotype and grand conspiracy.

The stereotype fits and it need not be a conspiracy, although there is necessarily some conspiracy involved wherever the government acts counter to the interests of wishes of the people. The government does not want better services, the people do. The government follows it's own interests, which are usually not those of the people. Have you not noticed? If not, then why is there so much fearful mention of the oil, vehicle and road construction industry, if they do not have the ear of the government?

Moblility, it is pretty obvious why you catch public transport, despite a litany of complaints (which would be better directed to the Minister for Main Roads and the Department of Transport in my humble opinion, rather than this website). Simply put, you cannot afford to own a car right now, you want the choice and time to choose one, you have to save for one, the road conditions are obviously not to your liking, no matter whatever the cause for those might be, and congestion gets into your way.

It's not a "litany" - I did not read those complaints from a book, they actually exist. I am sure the Minister is ready to listen to my concerns - right in line after major political and business interests. My experience with politicians is that they are permanently out to lunch. The don't have to care about my complaints. I do my campaigning through the common man, with whom I share the same interests, not the politicians and other institutions, whose interests are counter to mine. Only through education of the people can change be effected, because for change to happen, the people must be behind it. You formed your own group on this same principle - the people must be prepared for your policies to be implemented. You don't just write letters to politicians: "Dear Anna, give us more trains, signed ozbob and tramtrain."

Travel is a basic need. That's why the government provides a service that allows people the means to move around even though other people can afford to move around in their own personal car. Some people, including myself, have their own personal and private bicycle. Other people are too young to have their license or too old to drive or have a disability preventing them to do so, for some people they have been disqualified from driving due to their personal irresponsibility. For some, the costs of car ownership are simply prohibitive. A Toyota Prius is $40 000, to buy AIUI, and I just cannot afford that or the operational cost that would entail, and it seems that you, despite what you might say, fall into that category too.

I recognise that many people cannot or choose not to have access to a vehicle. I am not saying PT should be abolished. It may also genuinely require expansion and improvements. But "the spirit of the board" at RBOT is not merely advocating that. Many people hare say or imply that it should be our main mode of travel, not just one option equal to others.

I am unconvinced by your "price is right" argument advanced as a reason why you don't get a car. If that is your needs, then go and buy one. There are cars that are $2000 - $5000, second hand cars, but I refuse to buy or drive them because they are lemons, are unreliable, have high maintainence and insurance costs and are downright dangerous if you ask me. I also cannot afford to operate something like that in terms of paying for petrol. And I am glad, I can spend more money on me and my life rather than a special tonne or so of metal and machinery just for my personal transport. I would rather share a PT vehicle with someone else and split the cost with them thank you.

So you don't believe that I really do dislike PT, or that I would prefer to own a car - I'm just pretending and making silly excuses? No, I wish to have a car, but I have other things on my plate at the moment and I am willing to put it off, unless a good deal presents itself out of the blue.

Your reasons for not owning a car don't add up. There may be genuine reasons why you can't afford a car. But cars, by allowing users to save time and do more things more quickly and easily, are an economic advantage which therefore enable anyone who wishes to to earn and save more money. This balances out the costs of the vehicle. It is just one instance of technology making economic advancement easier. For instance, you have a bicycle. That costs less than a car, but it costs more than your legs and feet, which you got free. (Your bicycle  is less safe also.) But you use it anyway. Why? Because it saves you time and effort. A car can save far more time and effort than a bicycle. A car allows you to make more money to spend on your life and also improves the quality of that life. Having more money does not alone mean more quality of life. If all you had was a million dollars in your hand, but no house, food or bicycle, your quality of life would be very poor.

The argument that PT saves money ignores the hidden monetary costs and also the hidden non-monetary costs. The hidden monetary costs are those you pay through taxes. Fares alone do not pay for PT. And even fares continue to increase in big leaps. The non-monetary costs are the lack of personal mobility and capacity and quality of life. PT is cheaper in cost of fares, but it puts users at a great economic disadvantage and a lower standard of living.

Simply put, you catch PT as an option of last resort under the circumstances that face you. While not everybody is in such a cirumstance and It may not be the nicest experience for you, it at least affords you some basic level of personal mobility that you would otherwise not have.

They are not circumstances I acceptor circumstances which necessarily must continue to  exist. Something else could be provided for me other than the basic level of personal mobility. You may as well say that because PT in it's present "unimproved" state is not preferred by most people, they should all continue driving (or start to) and not think about how they might change their situation. I know people who advocate "public and active" transport and yet own a car and drive it everywhere. Their excuse is that PT is not sufficiently convenient for them to be able to use it, so they are waiting for it to be improved. By your logic, they should accept that option under the circumstances that face them.

So what you are doing is assuming that we cannot ultimately sufficiently improve roads but that improvement of PT can make it sufficiently convenient for all people. What you are doing is assuming the position I am questioning. Which means that you are always going to be "right".

[Mobility]

Change is welling up in the basement...

Wrong way
Confessions of a recovering engineer

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-22-confessions-of-a-recovering-engineer

An engineer designing a street or road prioritizes the world in this way, no matter how they are instructed:

   1. Traffic speed
   2. Traffic volume
   3. Safety
   4. Cost

The rest of the world generally would prioritize things differently, as follows:

   1. Safety
   2. Cost
   3. Traffic volume
   4. Traffic speed

In other words, the engineer first assumes that all traffic must travel at speed. Given that speed, all roads and streets are then designed to handle a projected volume. Once those parameters are set, only then does an engineer look at mitigating for safety and, finally, how to reduce the overall cost (which at that point is nearly always ridiculously expensive).

In America, it is this thinking that has designed most of our built environment, and it is nonsensical. In many ways, it is professional malpractice. If we delivered what society asked us for, we would build our local roads and streets to be safe above all else. Only then would we consider what could be done, given our budget, to handle a higher volume of cars at greater speeds.

We go to enormous expense to save ourselves small increments of driving time. This would be delusional in and of itself if it were not also making our roads and streets much less safe. I'll again reference a 2005 article from the APA Journal showing how narrower, slower streets dramatically reduce accidents, especially fatalities.

And it is that simple observation that all of those supposedly "ignorant" property owners were trying to explain to me, the engineer with all the standards, so many years ago. When you can't let your kids play in the yard, let alone ride their bike to the store, because you know the street is dangerous, then the engineering profession is not providing society any real value. It's time to stand up and demand a change.

The engineer does not say whether his recovery had anything to do with a better paying job. Sustainable Development is big business.

Roads are for driving vehicles along and their first design priority should be to fulfill that purpose. There is no such thing as perfect safety. The logical end of the reasoning in that article is to drive at horse-and-buggy or walking speeds, making cars useless.

What about the convenient means of committing suicide which railway trains provide? When I ask about the cause of the delays I frequently (every other day) experience on trains, the two common replies are (1) a vehicle on a level crossing and (2) a suicide and clean-up.

The same safety logic argued in the article also applies to light rail, which operates along city streets used by pedestrians and other vehicles, not dedicated rail lines.

See also my post "Reply #34" above in this thread. Just as many deaths and injuries could result from trains and buses, especially if their frequency and the number of routes is greatly increased, as RBOT wishes.

Change isn't just welling in the basement. It's coming from the top.

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-building/about-planning-building/sustainable-development/index.htm

Was "road-centric" Campbell Newman in office when somebody sneaked that page onto his website?

[ozbob]

Since RBOT is working to shape the views of the community and have it's views implemented in the community, probably with some funding from the govenment, which all of us paid for, it is proper that all memebers of the community, of all views, be able to speak on your board.

Terms of use of this forum are clear.  I pay for this message board hosting, complete.  There is no government funding, nor would we want it.

This forum is for folks who generally support public transport, particularly rail.  There are plenty of other groups where you can go and post your comments.  You are welcome to continue here providing you respect the purposes of this forum and group.  Coming here and trolling is not welcome.

Any future breaches and you will de-registered.  Start your own forum.

I posted this previously on Nov 28  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3089.msg40860#msg40860

A reminder, RAIL Back On Track is a group that is interested in advancing rail and public transport.

"There are no qualifications for membership other than an interest in rail transport solutions and/or public transport and a desire to see improved rail transport outcomes for the community."   http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=258.0

Improved rail transport outcomes is dependent on improved public and active transport as well, for example proper feeder bus networks and adequate bicycle facilities at stations.  On that basis you may wish to review your participation on this message board Mobility as it would appear you are not in the general spirit of this message board or what we promote.

Terms of use clearly state http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3.msg3#msg3

RAIL - Back On Track Admin may remove or refuse to accept a user's registration at any time. RAIL - Back On Track admin may terminate this service at any time.