Energy Matters Forums

[rg767]

I have a theory that proponents of changing the mix of transport fuels just don't get the problem. Especially when it comes to private transport.

I would argue that the problems are:

The massive effect that cars have on urban planning

The fact that our cities are being covered in roads, and the costs that these roads incur (who has ever heard of the argument applied to public transport "when is the payback?" being applied to a road?

The increases in general infrastructure costs as our cities spread out as a result of cheap private transit options - I note that infrastructure costs in new suburbs generally top $60,000 per lot in new developments - this is straight public funding in water and electricity infrastructure

The lack of social cohesion/breakdown in social cohesion that this network of roads has helped to creat

The fact that even if we do power private electric transport that we will still have a massive supply issue, certainly this wont be achievable via renewables

This point I love - its something I have heard described as public squalor, private splendor, and I think it describes our suburbs very nicely. Why are our public places so insipid? Because we build our cities for cars, not humans or humanity.

I reckon the question is not " how do we power our cars in the future", but, "how do we go about getting rid of them?"

I believe that if we can get rid of the car, regardless of fuel sources, we can begin to improve everything. Let me know if there is anything you think cannot be improved by getting rid of cars.

[bpratt]

Fact of life in Australia is that we will be requiring the need of private transport, i.e. cars for a long long time.

Public transport is certainly never going to take care of demand for people to get around the place.


Beaudesert less than an hour from Brisbane, has at last check only had one or two buses of the morning and the same in the afternoon to the nearest bus interchange at Browns Plains, where people get a decent chance of getting anywhere.

Whereas here, even in the small shopping centre that's around 5km from here, there's no public transport at all to anywhere.


People need cars to get around the place, we're not an inner-urban location that can in deed benefit from public transport, and possibly not need the private car.

[rg767]

I wonder if you have proved my point!

The private car and its effect on the sprawl of our cities has made it impossible to sustain public transport systems. So what happens when supplies of oil decrease?

[bpratt]

I wonder if you have proved my point!

The private car and its effect on the sprawl of our cities has made it impossible to sustain public transport systems. So what happens when supplies of oil decrease?

I think that's stretching it a bit far 'proving your point'.

City sprawl has been going along for an awful long time, and we'll continue to be driving cars for many years to come.... they may not be petrol powered anymore, but there will be cars.

What about major country centres, where you will never get a decent public transport ?

[rg767]

Maybe a stretch... Certainly not proving the whole thing, but I don't think that sprawl and cars are not connected.

You might be right, there may be cars for a long time. I don't think so, because the first limitation will be petrol, and then the subsequent limitations get even more limiting.

Instead of cars being around for a long time, the suburbs wont be.

[bpratt]

Instead of cars being around for a long time, the suburbs wont be.

Possibly urban satellites ? .... where suburbs become mini-cities in their own right, and then linked together via a rapid transit system.

[hydrokevin]

I think population growth and urban sprawl are more connected than cars. In my lifetime, the population of the earth has more than doubled. People have to go somewhere.

[rg767]

Cars are the reason for urban sprawl. Urban sprawl hasn't just happened organically - you can see this link in europe more clearly. The older walking cities were more centralised, and you can see where new transport technoogies have been added throughout the ages and relative sprawl has increased.

I can also see that the link between population and car use is largely inversely proportional.

Cars actually make little sense. For all the talk of efficiency on this forum, you would be hard pressed to find a less efficient method of transit, whatever the fuel.

[hydrokevin]

If people all wanted to go to the same places at the same time then public transportation makes sense. But cars mean freedom and flexibility which is what many people want and why they are such a big hit.

[rg767]

Freedom, but at a massive cost.