Study Finds More Americans Commuting To Work Splattered On Grill Of F-150
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 The answer is definitely not never.
I'm all for increasing the cost of driving, including fuel excises. And taxes on cars. And potentially congestion taxes.
But most people — at least in the mainland capitals — should be within comfortable walking distance of a public transport service that runs every 10 minutes first.
That's not currently the case.
Price mechanisms aren't as effective as they could be at changing behaviour if there are no viable alternatives in place.
So my answer is ideally petrol prices should be increased at the same time as decent bus services are rolled out across the capital cities.
And I think where public transport services are already at a decent standard, or as services are improved, we should be rolling out more localised disincentives to driving, such as pedestrianising streets.
We should be doing that right now.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 The really big missing piece of the puzzle in Australia — even the major capital cities — is the frequency of suburban bus services.
Here's the timetable for a typical Melbourne suburban bus route: https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/stop/15701/allambanan-drdorset-rd/2/bus/#StopPage:::datetime=2024-03-02T21%3A00%3A00.000Z&directionId=193&showAllDay=false&auth=f308870091d891540e8a71291593644d70d97c0fb737e7cc29342c6a7802e96d
If you want to financially penalise people for driving, I think at a minimum you need to get that service up to a 10 minute all-day frequency.
Regional and rural transport services are another weak spot as well.
And I think you're more likely to get the results you're after if the increase in driving costs (however it's implemented) comes either at the same time, or after services are improved to a reasonable standard.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712
"Also this isn't a difference between Australia and the US. The US also has a federal gas tax."
Okay, I stand corrected on this point.
But my core point remains.
Look at the oil price shocks of the 1970s, early 2000s, and two years ago.
Just increasing the price of driving alone doesn't create sustained modal shifts, unless public transport and cycling are viable alternatives.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712
"When do you expect transit to be sufficient to allow increasing gas prices?"
Probably sometime during the Fraser government, back in the 1980s.
So an important difference between Australia and the US is that the Australian Federal Government already has a national Fuel Excise Tax, as well as Goods and Services Tax on Fuel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FueltaxesinAustralia
But going back to the main point.
People can't choose public transport over the car if the public transport system in the area isn't up to scratch.
People on higher incomes can afford any increase to the cost of driving the most.
And they tend to live in the inner suburbs that have the best access to public transport.
It's the working class people in the car-dependent outer suburbs — the western suburbs of Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane in particular — who are the least able to afford it.
And when you attempt to increase the cost of driving when there aren't any good alternatives, you prompt a not-unjustified political backlash.
That political backlash is real. It's why — for example — Australia no longer has a price on carbon.
And from a social policy standpoint, you effectively financially penalise people for being poor.
The reason why I cited the Northwest Metro is because it's a great example of a rail service that's better than driving for many trips. And it was built in an area that previously had quite poor access to public transport.
That means improving density along existing rail corridors, opening up new higher-density mixed-use developments along new rail corridors, and retrofitting high-frequency (every 10 minutes or greater) bus services to existing suburban areas.
Once good alternatives are in place, that's when you ideally should take steps to make driving less attractive.
That can range from local interventions, such as pedestrianising streets and reducing the mandatory parking requirements in local planning codes.
It can potentially include congestion surcharges, parking taxes, etc.
And at a state or national level, increasing fuel excise, motor vehicles registration, stamp duty, etc.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 The Hills Shire document you're looking at is from 2019.
Notice how the Metro is referred to in the future we tense? "We anticipate..."
Well, the NW Metro only opened in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroNorthWestLine
And the figures you're quoting are from before the Metro opened.
Which is why the train modal share is just 1%. People had to catch a bus or drive to somewhere like Epping or Parramatta to get a train. The Hills were a pretty notorious public transport blackspot before the NW Metro opened.
I don't see the logic in saying it hasn't led to a shift in modal share before it opened?
The final phases of that Metro project, called Metro City & Southwest, are opening this year and in 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SydneyMetroCity%26Southwest
The NW Metro will also eventually connect with another Sydney Metro line to the new Western Sydney Airport. The first phase of that line is opening in 2026: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SydneyMetroWesternSydneyAirport
The second Infrastructure Australia report you linked to looks at the entire Sydney Metropolitan Area, not just northwest Sydney.
It's like looking at overall modal share across the Greater New York metropolitan area to judge a new line in Brooklyn.
There are still public transport blackspots in Sydney. The Northern Beaches and the outer west are two prime examples.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 The fastest alternative route is the M2 Hills Motorway, which was built as a tollway in 1997, in addition to all the existing roads in the area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2HillsMotorway
Building a new motorway isn't hobbling congestion, it's enabling it.
It was supposed to relieve congestion to northwest Sydney.
Well, there's still traffic jams.
And even compared to a completely grade-separated dual carriageway six-lane motorway, the Metro is still faster during peak hour.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 Here's the timetable for the Sydney Northwest Metro: https://transportnsw.info/documents/timetables/93-M-Sydney-Metro-North-West-20230929.pdf
It has a service every four minutes during the morning and evening peak.
I've attached a screenshot from Google Maps showing what's typical 8am morning commute would look like from Rouse Hill to Macquarie University and the Macquarie Park business precinct.
It's typically 40 minutes by car. You have to have your hands on the wheel. You're stuck in traffic. That's if you pay $9.56 or $14.13 for a toll road, which is a bit quicker.
Or you can take the Metro.
Trains run every four minutes during the morning peak, so you can turn up and go. It's a modern service with driverless trains and platform-screen doors.
It takes 32 minutes — so it's the faster option. And you can do other things during your commute.
(I've attached a screenshot, please note you might need to see the original post to view it.)
The train is the faster and more convenient option.
Why wouldn't you take the Metro?
This isn't because the state government has done anything to hobble road driving.
It's because the NSW State Government has invested in building a good quality, frequent Metro service to the northwestern suburbs.
The Metro has been a catalyst for building a number of transit-oriented developments at each of the stations. For the people living in those apartments, there's a clear winner.
The problem is that for around 70 years after WW2, governments have zoned whole suburbs for low-density residential.
These car-dependent suburbs, cars were the only viable option for getting to work, school, or shopping. By design.
At best, there's an often unreliable bus that runs every 20 minutes during the peak. And that's it.
At least in Australia, they tend to be on the outer fringes of the major metropolitan areas. Wealthier people with a choice tend to prefer inner-urban areas with better public transport.
If you just hit people in these areas with taxes and fines without a compelling alternative, and you're effectively levelling a poor tax.
Give people access to good quality public transport — and yes it can be faster than being stuck in traffic — and they'll choose it.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 Put enough good quality alternatives in, and you can get modal shift without resorting to punative measures.
If walking, cycling, or catching a train to a given destination is faster and easier than driving, then that's what many people will do.
But those alternatives — fast metro systems, frequent busses, light rail, barrier-protected and off-street cycling paths — need to be in place first.
@oo1 @abroadoctopus A typical bike weighs somewhere around 6.8 – 10kg or so. Even when carrying an adult human and some cargo, you're only looking at maybe 80 – 100 kg
By comparison, a Ford 150 pickup truck weighs 1837 kg and 2375 kg. The 1.2 (on average) humans on-board are a rounding error.
So you're looking at the difference between around 100kg on two fairly thin tyres, versus over 2 tonnes over four thick tyres.
What that means is when you hit the brakes on a pick-up truck, you have twice as many tyres are doing an order of magnitude more work to stop a far heavier vehicle.
Now on to road damage. (Road wear and asphalt degradation is the other half of this equation.)
The general rule of thumb is each time you double the weight of vehicle, the amount of road wear increases 16 times. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourthpowerlaw)
A 10kg bike with a 70kg rider is going to do a miniscule fraction of the damage to a paved road that a 1837 kg pick-up truck or SUV does.
(A 160kg vehicle does 16x the road wear of an 80kg one, a 320kg one does 16x the wear as a 160kg one and 256 times an 80kg one, a 640 kg is 4,096 times an 80kg one, a 1,280 kg vehicle is 65, 536 times an 80kg one, and a 2,560 kg vehicle is 1,048,576 times the road wear of an 80kg one.)
So a motorist, especially an SUV or pick-up truck driver, is likely to cause an order of magnitude less environmental damage on a bike than in a pick-up truck or SUV.
@Atemu @lemming934 What was more of interest was that literature review and overview of the state of research, rather than the specifics of the research itself.
Currently, a lot of the public disclosure around microplastics focusses on things like plastic bottles and bags. There's little public discussion around the impacts of driving and tyres.
Whereas, in the academic discourse, there is an acknowledgement that one of the top sources of microplastic pollution is from tyres and asphalt, particularly in waterways.
@unionagainstdhmo @muntedcrocodile Munted crocodile (by the way, I love your username), I'm genuinely curious about something.
So let's get this straight. You don't like 'socialism', and you don't like governments providing services to citizens, and you're a fan of social Darwinism.
If that's the case, what in the bloody hell are you doing in Canberra?!
Seriously, the whole town is basically public servants, defence personnel, consultants, contractors, and the people who provide services to them.
And yeah, if you're being directly or indirectly paid by taxpayers, then of course you're going to vote for parties that support government services.
With the light rail, the issue at this stage is that the network isn't extensive enough yet. And the solution is more light rail.
It's fantastic if you live between Gungahlin and Civic. Public transport along its own dedicated right of way spends a lot less time in traffic. But it needs to be rolled out further for more people to gain the benefits.
@voracitude I think the biggest subsidy of all is the hidden one.
Burning fossil fuels leads to more frequent and severe floods, droughts, bushfires, heatwaves, and hurricanes.
The costs of rebuilding and recovering from those disasters are a cost of using fossil fuels.
If the fossil fuel companies aren't paying that cost, they're receiving a subsidy. And it's already a massive one.
Also.
I didn't include it in the post above, but apparently the CEO of ExxonMobil is also totally against subsidies...
For climate action:
"The way that the government is incentivized and trying to catalyze investments in this space is through subsidies. Driving significant investments at a scale that even gets close to moving the needle is going to cost a lot of money.
...
"But I would tell you building a business on government subsidy is not a long-term sustainable strategy—we don’t support that."
https://fortune.com/2024/02/27/exxon-ceo-darren-woods-interview-pay-the-price-for-net-zero/
@WendyMsGator @fuckcars He should have just given that bakery one of his cars.
Their poor quality control and propensity for catching on fire would make them a great substitute for an oven.
@Godfrey642 @fuckcars You raise a really good point — it's not just the size and weight of the massive SUVs and pickup trucks that's the issue.
It's also that they encourage the people who drive them to be far more reckless than they would be if they were driving — say — a small sedan or hatchback.
@bastardsheep @yoz The whole saga around Fran Kelly's chat show in 2022 kinda sums up the issue: https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/fran-kelly-is-fine-and-familiar-but-she-s-not-the-future-of-the-abc-20220812-p5b9c9.html
Since the early 2000s, the Australian free-to-air networks have churned out an endless stream of low-budget reality shows.
There's been nothing really worth watching for the past 20 years on FTA, and better shows online. So everyone under around 40 tuned out long ago.
So the FTA networks have responded by pandering to the tastes and views of older viewers.
That's not just on social or political issues. That's in terms of the shows themselves, and the talent who host and appear on them.
And so any younger viewers that tune in end up tuning out. That leads to lower ratings, and fewer and dollars, which leads to more shows pandering to older viewers.
And so what you end up with is this self-perpetuating death spiral.
@naevaTheRat @fosstulate Am I being overly cynical in thinking that it's no coincidence the CEO of Woolies steps down, just as the talk of inquires and regulatory reform heats up?
After all, if there's a public inquiry or a Royal Commission, and the head of Woolies is called to testify, they'll now honestly be able to say that they only just stepped into the role recently, and have no idea about the decisions their predecessor made.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 Here's where there is a big difference between the US and Australia.
The wealthiest parts of Australia's capital cities are in the inner-city, which already have access to good public transport.
The poorest areas tend to be the outer suburbs, where public transport is a half-hourly bus, and cycling involves navigating a six-lane stroad with no protected bike lane.
It's the opposite to the US, where in many metro areas the wealthiest white residents live in outer-suburban gated communities and the (often Black) working class have traditionally lived in the inner city.
The wealthiest suburbs in Melbourne are served by the (mostly inner-city) tram network. Toorak, Brighton, Kew, Camberwell, and increasingly Fitzroy.
And the poorest tend to be in the outer suburbs.
There's a whole history of why it played out differently to the US.
But the big factor for why someone lives in, say, Carrum Downs in outer southeast Melbourne (where the local public transport is by bus) is because it's all they can afford.
In the US, where the wealthiest people live in the outer suburbs, raising gas prices to encourage them to move to the inner city where there's better public transport would probably work.
The difference is that in Australia the wealthiest people actively avoid the outer suburbs.
It's the working class who tends to live in the outer suburbs.
Most Carrum Downs residents would gladly choose to live somewhere like Brighton or Toorak with good public transport. If they could afford it.
That means there needs to be decent alternatives to driving if you're going to increase the cost of driving.