LAT wrote:Thought I would put my two bobs in about a potential route for a North/South Freeway. I believe this route would minimise required land acquisition and subsequently contain costs (At least to some degree) as well as being more politically digestable.
Good idea LAT, lets hope we get more people with good ideas. Particularly about roads.
AtD wrote:Firstly, you're treating it as if it should be a for profit enterprise, which it isn't. Transport infrastructure is, in many instances, a natural monopoly and thus shouldn't be run for a profit. It's a social service, like health and education, that creates many social benefits.
I am aware it exists primarily as a social justice tool. I question the mentality behind the idea that others must be forced onto a form of transport when they may of choosen another.
AG wrote:It isn't the economic growth that isn't sustainable, it's the pattern of urban growth that we continue to follow to accomodate new residents that is unsustainable.
New populations are more consumers then producers. Australia relies on its surplus natural resources for its wealth. There is little benefit of continuing to grow our population rapidly. Slow sustained growth is best.
AG wrote:some people do choose to live in the outer suburbs, but many people who live out there cannot afford locations closer to the city and really don't have a whole lot of choices. A lot of these families live in areas where the bus services hardly cover the area and don't come anywhere near frequent enough, and many only have one car.
How does attempting to force people into higher density inner city living environments help affordability. If transport cost to the outer suburbs are so detrimental why are people continuing to move there instead of flocking to inner city high density areas. Australians do not want to live in an apartment they want to live in a house, particularly those with a family. They don’t need or want someone telling them what type of housing will provide a better living condition and be a morally superior place to live.
AtD wrote:Second, you're not actually considering what the funds represent. Ticket prices, for example, are not set with the goal of offsetting operation costs but allowing people be able to use the system. Ticket sales are a marginal (per unit) source of revenue, and the system has high average (fixed) and low marginal costs. Car registration is entirely a revenue raising exercise and is a fixed revenue. The high marginal costs of operation are left mostly to the consumer and the lower average costs mostly to the public sector.
Thirdly, you're only considering it from the perspective of the Treasury. There are public and private costs imposed by both forms of transport, and some are monetary and some are not. Your analysis does not include the high private costs of car ownership, being the cost of the vehicle, fuel, insurance and ongoing maintenance, yet it includes all these costs for PT. The non-monetary costs from private transport are far greater than those from public transport, being pollution, noise, health and safety, etc. You're assuming that the state pays for all roads, which it doesn't. Much of the costs are left to LGAs and covered by ratepayers.
Yes the are private costs to both forms of transport. It is up to the individual to decide what is the best form of transport. People are not "wrapped in the cocoon environment of the car", as one of my formal lecturers said. People choose the car as the preferred form of transport because it is extremely quick, continent and reliable all of which public transport is not. Taxes on motorist offsets any potential harm they may bring such as this smog problem no one realised existed until the advertiser reported it. Not that there is great a difference if pollution comes from cars of Torrens Island power station.
AG wrote:Congestion on Adelaide's road costs the economy in excess of $1 billion a year, encouraging a shift to public transport would reduce or limit the growth of that figure.
The increase in travel time the public transport would bring would far outweigh the economic cost of traffic congestion, not that I know how this billion dollar number could of come up. You need to look at the whole picture.
I am not entirely against public transport improvements, but for Adelaide roads and in particular a north-south freeway should be a priority. Adelaide will never have an a comprehensive public transport system. For public transport to work effectively high density and centralised environments are needed, while Adelaide is low density and spread over a large area. Southern and northern areas will continue to grow and there is a need to provide them with infrastructure of both road and rail regardless if you think they don’t deserve it of not. What if Mitsubishi is to decline in the south what industry will they fall back on? I dont have much confidence in the current goverment deliving improvement in any forms of transport. They are more preoccupied persueing popularist policies with the top priority of re-election. But the loger it is left the more difficult and costly it will become.