Home arrow Opinion Archive
Report a comment

Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site.
Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report.

Name
 
E-mail
 
Reason for reporting comment
 
   

This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots. (see: www.captcha.net)

Type the characters that you see in the box (5 characters). The code can include characters 0..9 and A..Z.

  

I cannot read the characters. Generate a

 

Comment in question

more on roads, transport and fuel

By: willy*bach (Registered ) on 19-10-2007 00:09

Dear AlanK 
 
First, let me apologise to "virtual" for not being "in the building" at his/her beck and call at 12.17 am. I hope you are still on board for this episode of the discussion. 
 
AlanK, I was being selective which of your points to address because there is a word limit. You need to know what I would do if elected to federal parliament. I would apply new thinking that factors in all that has been learnt about transport issues in the past twenty years and the new thinking that treats climate change as our main environmental threat. Both of the major parties are stuck in the old thinking of the 1960s that got us in this mess. 
 
You say, “Only a fraction of the excise is being spent on road/transportation works”. I am not sure what the fraction is, but the amount spent on roads is greater than that spent on public transport, which you also acknowledge. This expenditure needs to increase significantly to make public transport fast, efficient, comfortable and frequent.  
 
It may even make more sense to make public transport free so that the price signal is a stronger one. The Greens have suggested removing the GST from public transport as a first step. Making it free would have to be phased in over time. Studies have shown that the collecting of fares and the time taken to check tickets, give change and count the money at the end of each shift is revenue-neutral. 
 
Developers and land prices have driven our choices about desirable location of our homes. Regrettably planners have been constrained to think that affordability, sustainability are secondary to keeping their jobs in a climate of growth at all costs. Working in the city and living in the outer suburbs are not compatible. Everyone between Kenmore and Milton has to breathe your exhaust emissions and listen to the roar of your engine. Making fuel cheaper or cleaner or replacing petroleum products with ethanol will not significantly change this. There are just too many vehicles, often with one occupant, and people will need to change their expectations to use the public transport system. But public transport will need to be better or I will be joining you with my car in the traffic jam. 
 
If you do some reading on ethanol and the problems of turning food crops into fuel. It is not a win-win situation. The price of food goes up. People are starving in developing countries because of this.

» Report this comment to administrator

 
»  Go back to the article


mXcomment 1.0.2 © 2007-2009 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved