Essay by Eric Worrall
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, fear of Covid is causing people to avoid climate friendly public transport. But there may be another explanation.
Car use zooms back, risking Australia’s climate targets
By Mike Foley
June 8, 2023 — 1.45pm…
If the trend in car use continues, emission levels could soon draw level with pre-pandemic levels, which reached a height of 100.2 million tonnes in December 2019.
Professor Frank Jotzo, director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at Australian National University, said major transport reform, including public, is a major hurdle on Australia’s path to net zero emissions by 2050.
…
“It will not do for governments to simply say that people should take public transport,” Jotzo said. Australia’s relatively low share in public transport use compared to other developed nations was largely driven by the fact infrastructure had not kept pace with population growth and demand, he said.
“To get people out of their cars and onto public transport it needs to be very attractive, it needs to be comfortable and more importantly, it needs to be frequent, it needs to be reliable and it needs to be affordable.”
…
Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/car-use-zooms-back-risking-australia-s-climate-targets-20230608-p5dey0.html
One issue Professor Jotzo overlooked is safety.
In my community there is growing and widespread fear of youth crime, opportunistic theft and random violence.
I was at a community meeting last Saturday, where lot of people attributed this perception of rising street crime to family breakdown during the Covid lockdown, and the unwillingness of Aussie politicians to lock up underage thugs.
Even more disturbing there may have been a rise in organised street crime. An attendee at the community meeting, who walks his dog late at night, mentioned that he saw teams of underage criminals casing houses and testing locks, while their adult “handler” staying safe in his automobile, letting the drug addicted kids take the risks of actually committing the crimes.
Since underage thugs in Australia are rarely locked up, unless they actually kill someone, this alleged system of organised theft cleverly plays the system, minimising the risk to the adult organisers, and minimising the risk of anyone involved receiving a significant jail sentence. The kids who commit the crimes are likely paid in drugs, while the real criminals reap enormous profits from selling the stolen goods.
Australians don’t have a right to bear arms, even non-lethal deterrents, so older people especially are helpless if a drug crazed bull strong teenage thug decides it’s their turn to contribute to his addiction. Even worse if the drug addict is part of an organised criminal team, and can call on his drug crazed buddies to join the assault if anyone resists.
Given the widespread fear of crime, the lack of protection, and the unwillingness of politicians to lock up the mostly underage criminals at the bottom of these alleged crime networks, there is no mystery why lots of people these days are avoiding public transport, and older people especially are taking personal security very seriously indeed.
I’ve been personally touched by this crime wave, though thankfully nobody close to me has been hurt. A few months ago my tires along with the tires of at least 20 other automobiles in my area were stabbed. One householder who walked out at the wrong moment was menaced by a knife. The police called me a few weeks ago, and said they identified the criminal from security camera footage and arrested him, but there was nothing they could do. They locked him up, but he was bailed the following Monday, and would likely not see any further jail time. Every police officer I spoke to in relation to this case expressed their frustration and helplessness, their families are under threat as much as anyone else. They go through the motions, but the criminals they lock up are back on the street in hours or days. All this makes me wonder how long those police officers can live with believing their job is pointless, before they either quiet quit, or find something more rewarding to do with their life.
If politicians want the public to use more public transport for whatever reason, addressing crime and personal security concerns might be a good start.
Quote:-
“To get people out of their cars and onto public transport it needs to be very attractive, it needs to be comfortable and more importantly, it needs to be frequent, it needs to be reliable and it needs to be affordable.”
Who is going to pay for such transport, particularly in rural areas. Frequent and affordable must surely require subsidies for many routes?
There is also the practicalities like shopping at the supermarket where a car is virtually essential.
Where I live in rural U.K. bus services do not meet the criteria outlined in the article as it is uneconomic and impractical hence a car is necessary. It is not as simple as laying out what it should ideally be. Wishful thinking is easy!.
“…needs to be very attractive, it needs to be comfortable and more importantly, it needs to be frequent, it needs to be reliable and it needs to be affordable.”
So Jotzo thought so about collectivo transpo, but pro Costos eléctricos, not so?
Under age ( <18) don't get locked up in Queensland even if they do kill someone.
Not enforcing the law and thus encouraging chaos is part of the Marxist playbook for collapsing Western civilization. We see this clearly in the US as well with George Soros-funded district attorneys.
Yep as the usual suspects groom them in our schools so naturally-
The Greens are pushing to lower Australia’s voting age. Here’s what you need to know | SBS News
Be careful what you wish for lefties as old enough for adult voting old enough for adult jailing and it won’t affect kids with conservative upbringing.
True. In California, shoplifting is essentially legal or least goes unpoliced. A new law is being considered that would prevent store workers from interfering with shoplifters.
Of course a consequence of this is stores closing because the cost of thefts is too high.
In early stores, the customer would hand the clerk a shopping list. The clerk would go into the back room and fill the order, bring it out, ring it up and send the customer on their way.
Having aisles with multiple selections and having the customer wander the aisles choosing what they wanted is a relatively recent innovation in shopping.
Customers liked it because they could come in, get what they want, pay for it and leave. No need to wait for the next available clerk. They also ended up with more choices.
Stores liked it because they didn’t need as many employees.
Looks like with the current legal environment, stores may need to return to the older model.
stores may need to return to the older model.
I’ve read elsewhere that many ARE doing that. The specific example I saw was a Walgreens, in San Francisco.
During the 1950s, my local grocery store, a mile closer than A&P supermarket, was an old self choice grocery store with only the meats and lunchmeats behind a counter.
At the meat counter you’d point to the meat and state how many pounds. Since people shopped more frequently back then the weights were for tonight or tomorrow night.
The same selection process operated at the lunchmeat counter. Cooked and aged meats, charcuterie and cheeses as nowadays.
Quite a few people took their selections as single chunks to be sliced at home, including bacon.
i) bacon here in the states is cut from the stomach area’s fattier meat and frequently smoked and salt cured. Many people prefer their bacon crispy. Not crisp outside juicy inside, but crisp through and through and can be crumbled easily.
Stores make more money allowing self choice.
Personally, I hate writing. Thank the Lord for computers!
Anyway, any list I wrote before personal printers would have always been brutally short.
At a self choice grocery, I go up the aisles planning meals out for weeks and picking up the main ingredients plus all of the side dishes and accessories needed.
Choice of selection allows me to use the main dishes and available ingredients working out the whole meal, including appetizers and snacks.
I presume that the Australian National University is on a major bus route and that this Jotzo jerk uses it to get to work. That is if he is not a TWAT (working from home but only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays). Come to think of it, he is a TWAT anyway. How do braindead ideologues like this get to be professors.
Oh, and by the way, I keep a long iron poker and a Masai war club at home. Break into my house and you’re going to A&E.
Possible, but look at how many anti-flying climate activists fly to COP conferences every year. The special people frequently seem to believe their mission gives them a moral license to break the rules they seek to impose on others.
A dart frog and some darts would seem useful …
Followed by a deep hole and quick lime.
Their main weapon is fear
“”The Lancet Stokes Coronavirus Panic: ‘No Time for Complacency’””
https://www.breitbart.com/health/2023/06/10/the-lancet-stokes-coronavirus-panic-no-time-for-complacency/
Frankly, it’s getting boring now
This is another example of climate propaganda – BUSES US MORE ENERGY than cars per passenger mile. It is also and example of the media repeating industry lies instead of looking at readily available data.
The Transportation Energy Data Book shows cars use 3,144 BTU per- passenger-mile and “Transit Buses” use 4,071, 29% more. Data from http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb34/Edition34_Chapter02.pdf
Table 2.14.
Much more at DebunkingPortland.com
Jim,
From you link table 2.14
2019 … cars use 2,787 Btu : buses use 4,634 Btu = 66% more
The trouble with your analysis is that it holds true because buses are ignored by the public and waste energy constantly running near-empty. Packed full to the gills, buses are obviously going to be far more efficient than cars.
When they finish the project of making cars unaffordable and unavailable (just like in the good old days of the Soviet Union!), then we’ll “choose” to ride the bus. You’ll own nothing and be happy (or else!)
British Thermal Units, how quaint! Even the Brits don’t use BTUs any more.
“Packed full to the gills, buses are obviously going to be far more efficient than cars.”
That only happens during peak commute times and can ONLY be full at the destination, not the whole trip because if it gets full before the destination, it must leave people stranded. In most cities, the bus will return to the outter areas to get another load of inbound commuters – that return trip will be mostly empty. That means, during the busiest times, the bus is only about 1/4 full (reality will have some ons-offs in both directions, but hopefully you get the idea. Even the biggest ten transit cities in the country are only a bit better and DO NOT BEaT CARS – the last time I looked the buses were getting 3876 BTU/passenger-mile and as was pointed out above cars are now getting 2,787 , a lot less. DO NOT FORGET that the number i just stated for buse is from the TEN HIGHEST annual passenger-mile systems in the country. you can find it at: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Top10Bus.html
Anyone who can will avoid buses at peak times. I vividly remember the Montreal bus on a hot summer day when I was grossly pregnant. Interestingly, it was always older women who gave me a seat.
“buses are ignored by the public and waste energy”
There are very good reasons to NOT use buses (or other transit).
Public transport is a huge waste of government money at about 5 times what a car costs, it is not 24/7, is seldom goes where you want to go, you cannot carry a weeks worth of groceries on it, it is less convenient than a car, it takes TWICE AS LONG to get to work, buses emit MORE CO2 per passenger-mile. Why do we continue to waste money on transit, when it would be cheaper to pay Uber/lift fares for the needy or help them buy a car?
http://debunkingportland.com/cars-vs-transit.html
http://www.debunkingportland.com/why_don't_ride_transit.html
Cars reach more jobs: http://www.debunkingportland.com/transit_and_jobs.html
Transit DOES NOT CUT CONGESTION: http://www.debunkingportland.com/transit_congestion.html
They LIE to voters by claiming they will reduce congestion to get votes for money that, if spent on roads, would actually reduce congestion!
Filthy max: https://www.clackamasreview.com/opinion/opinion-odot-tolling-plan-cant-work-without-functional-public-transit/article_a2f9574a-a42e-11ed-9333-8b6a2e0ecd1f.html
———————–
Hopefully you know that it is very difficult to ever have a bus run full because it MUST startout close to empty at the end of the line, then no more than full at the destination. That means it is HALF FULL on average when it is crush load at the destination. Then average in the reverse commute direction and you are close to 1/4 full during the peak of the rush hour!
You seem very emotionally invested in this topic, Jim.
To me, the important issue is not whether one mode of transport is more energy efficient. To me the issue is freedom of motion. The closest bus to my home is about 2.5 miles away. If I wanted to somehow take public transportation to visit relatives in a relatively rural town in Eastern Massachusetts, I’m not sure if it would even be possible with less than 20 miles of walking.
Buses are still going to have to come to frequent, full stops, in order to let passengers on and off.
Especially packed full, those buses are going to take a lot of energy to get moving.
My link was to edition 34, using it now, it pulls up ed 40 hence, as usual, cars go
t better and transit got worse.
that should read “…cars got better…’
You know what they say: “If you torture the data enough it’ll tell you anything you want it to.”
““If you torture the data enough it’ll tell you anything you want it to.”
No torture here, just good data from the transit agencies, carefully checked by ORNL you cam probably verify this data by downloading you local transit agency’s CAFR. Probably the biggest potential errors are from deciding how many passengers the average car has in it. Of course the transit agencies know how much fuel they purchase and have passenger counters on most (if not all) vehicles.
Great point on the energy used and in addition the wealthier a person becomes the more likely the adopt the use of a individual transportation and the wealtheir a society becomes the more individual transportation is used. So mass transit is on the way out for local trips. Flying buses (airplanes) though have become so cheap that everyone except the homeless can fly at will anywhere on the planet. The greens are pushing against the tide.
Only those who have access to trams, trains, subways, busses, and taxis, could ask for people to travel by ‘public’ transport. For the rest of us the option simply does not exist even if it was the safest option out there.
The war being waged by state and local councils on the tax paying motorist has to be stopped.
A new political party embracing the interests of the tax payers and the motorists would be elected with an overwhelming majority here in the UK. The Dutch have shown how it can be done we need to do the same.
You can try. But the main effect of a third party is to weaken the viable party closest in ideology to that third party, benefitting the other viable party.
US experience with populist third-party candidates is that the Democrats and the media (sorry for repeating myself) quietly encourage them because they cannibalize Republican votes. It’s how we ended up with the Clintons in the first place.
Also, shrinking the size of the “tent” by stripping away part of a party’s coalition tends to radicalize it, making it even less viable. Do you think Corbyn would have led Labour in the absence of SNP and Lib-Dem?
Free advice, worth every penny you’re paying, is that you need to make Conservatives conservative again. You could give it an acronym like, oh I dunno, MaConCA (I’m no good at acronyms demonstrably).
‘make Conservatives conservative again’
Here in the US, ‘conservatives’ have conserved nothing because their primary principle is not liberty but rather maintaining some semblance of the status quo. As a result, we’ve been dragged inevitably leftward by the progressives over the past 100+ years.
People like Thomas Jefferson and William Wilberforce were not Conservatives.
Well here we go with that pointless discussion again—Labels for political factions. Conservative doesn’t have a globally fixed meaning nor does Liberal.
I would prefer to be called a Liberal being as my values are Liberty and free markets, but Liberal has been tainted by the statist Progressives who were actually fascists/national socialists.
I’m ok with being called an American conservative who wants to conserve the liberal values of the founding of our republic.
In the UK context conservatism isn’t classically liberal, but more associated with a class-based social order, so I grant your point that the Tories are a poor vessel for what are probably better called Liberals. Yet they have the Lib-Dems who are actually left socialists.
In a first-past-the-post election, purity of the party manifesto/platform is a luxury that cannot be afforded.
That’s the reasoning behind preferential voting systems.
The first preference votes are counted. Unless one candidate has over 50%, all except the 2 candidates with the highest number of votes are eliminated and the second preferences from the ballot papers which put an eliminated candidate first are then counted, This continues with the 3rd preference, etc, until one of the remaining 2 candidates has over 50%.
It’s more work for the counters and scrutineers, but does allow for protest votes to be effective.
Which is why the major parties are completely opposed to it.
They seem okay with it here.
The UK rejected Alternative Vote (aka ranked choice voting). We might as well discuss the hypothetical of the US switching to a proportional representation parliamentary system. So long as the system is first past the post, as in the UK, what I said is going to apply.
Certainly. Different places have different approaches. Preferential voting seems to be quite effective in Australia. The protest vote element can inform the major parties whether to shift their policy stance to the left or right during the next election cycle without major impacts on their overall electoral results.
What ‘targets’ are these? Have they been written down somewhere? Can we read them?
A local welsh village has a regular bus service …
you can get on the bus 10:20 on Tue, but you only return at 10:15 on Friday !!
But it is covid safe, as the driver still wears a mask on his chin.
With service like that why would you want to use a car ??
You’d have to be mad to prefer your car wouldn’t ye?
‘quiet quitting‘ has been going on for a very long time….
I didn’t obviously know that exact term when I came on it many moons ago -while single handed looking after 125 Angus cows and all their babies.
While being hamstrung by ‘bureaucracy’
It came from a Time and Motion Study someone in the UK had had commissioned.
Especially looking at Public Sector workers vs Private Sector workers and analysing Just How Much Time folks ‘at work’ actually spent ‘doing their (paid for) job
(Would anyone get away with doing that now?)
I can’t recall the exact figures that came out of it but they were, esp to me at the time: Horrifying
But it went, roughly ish, that Private Sector workers spent over 85% of their time ‘at work’ actually doing what they were being paid to do
While for Public Sector workers, they spent less than 50% of their time actually ‘on the job’
We’re talking (extended?) toilet breaks, chatting round the coffee machine, personal phone calling, playing Solitaire, Faceborking etc etc or even just arriving late and going home early
What especially got my goat (2 things, see below for #2) was simultaneously it was announced that, for first time ever, average pay on the Public Sector had become higher than average pay in the private sector.
Previously it had always been the other way round.
While ‘normal office hours’ were 30hrs/week (public) and 35hrs/week private
And now we’re informed by savvy researchers that, not exactly contrary to what Gov tells us – we’re not just told, one third of all ‘workers are now employed by Government.
Goat #2: It was/is that, as a “Livestock Keeper” was under an extremely strict legal requirement to ‘attend my animals at least once in any/every 24 hour period’
Thus, in the 5 years since the passing of my father, that meant I didn’t know what a weekend was, what Christmas was, birthdays or holidays of any description.
And is why, 19 years ago and coming home from attending my livestock, I ‘just fell over’ in a muddy gateway and couldn’t for the life of me understand why I couldn’t stand up again
So: If sometimes I come across as ‘less than nice’ or angry – it’s because something triggered that memory.
sorry – but no-one ever recovers from stroke. It’s a scar on your brain/mind that never heals.
(We hear mention of John Selwyn Gummer quite often = the Perfect Hypocrite Lowlife.
He was ‘my’ or The Minister Of Agriculture around that time)
Thanks Chuck.
Then in Holland, a place where I thought they held farmers in Epic Respect (they certainly did used to) are shooting live bullets at them in their tractors and turfing off their farms.
So as to build solar panels and ever more houses
And it’s those Quiet Quitters organising that.
And just look at The TextBook TrainWreck that Boris Johnson has turned into, or actually, revealed to be.
Didn’t I say years ago: Alcoholics ## and Diabetics should NOT be allowed into Governments, Parliaments, Military, Science & Schools, Police or Medicine.
## There is No ‘Safe Limit’ and no, you can not ‘handle it’
Yes, Peta, I had my stroke about 10 years ago. It really does slow you down, doesn’t it.
Probably NO-ONE should be allowed into government, but then several questions arise, like who decides?
I’m not so sure about alcoholics, and I’m absolutely certain that there is no reason to bar diabetics (yes, I know about your periodic rants about sugar – after a degree in Biochemistry I feel qualified to disagree).
As Douglas Adams remarked in The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, “It is a strange fact that those keenest to be leaders of men are usually those least-suited for the job.”
Periodic? Periodic is it? Is that a misspelling of perpetual?
Some years ago, I was contracted to look at a computer system used by a major (UK) government department, because “it wasn’t doing the job” and customer service had dropped through the floor. (The “customers” were generally poor, desperate, people). As part of my investigation, I visited a call centre. I was wearing a suit, which was very unusual in this department: when I walked into one room, which housed about 200 call centre staff, almost half were sitting on colleagues’ desks, drinking coffee and chatting, but when they saw me, they literally ran back to their desks. I took a notebook out and pretended to write a few things, walked across the room and out the other side, but I just waited for a minute and re-entered: sure enough, it was a repeat of my previous entry!
I asked one person, who was reading a newspaper, why he wasn’t answering the phone and he replied, “I’m not a robot”.
So there wasn’t any significant problem with either computer or telephone systems: the problem was a complete failure of management from the top down. The problems continue to this day. The only answer is to actually hold civil servants responsible and sack those who fail to do their jobs.
Can’t fire civil service employees, the union won’t let you. Short of trying to kill the boss, they have jobs for life. Wouldn’t surprise me if those who kill their boss were able to get their jobs back after getting out of prison. Assuming the modern criminal justice system would actually send them to jail.
A few quit, most join the gang; they become loss prevention investigators for insurance companies, using their knowledge of criminal law to “find” evidence the insurer can use to not pay the claim, even countersue. They take commission on every such “saved claim”.
Some become gunmonkeys for the rich and connected, also known as bodyguards/ security detail/ minder.
But most just join the Gang. Crime PAYS.
Consider a career criminal; how long do you think his career would last, if he was not friends with the police?
This would imply, of course, that less than 10% of cops out there, are hard at work keeping the other ninety percent off our throats! I salute them.
P.S. As an interesting synchronicity, I was offered just yesterday a lucrative opportunity to join the precious metals ‘business’. I was assured the police will be informed of my immunity to persecution (non sic). Even if I had a moment’s doubt, that was the thing that terminated the conversation; the idea of working with a compliant police force.
None other than Joe Biden has determined that the COVID matter is not over–he is requiring any unvaccinated visitor to the White House to wear a mask and socially distance.
So maybe there is something to the COVID argument against public transit. I would posit that the crime argument is stronger, though, in many places.
Well Biden is a fairly frail old man, no doubt he’s concerned about anyone with a cold or minor bug finishing him off.
> “To get people out of their cars and onto public transport it needs to be very attractive, it needs to be comfortable and more importantly, it needs to be frequent, it needs to be reliable and it needs to be affordable.”
The classic engineering tradeoff. In this case: Frequent, Reliable, Affordable. Pick two.
One problem, frequent and reliable will make it less affordable.
I find it surprising that anyone would want to be a cop anymore.
Recently there was a case out of Los Angeles.
A woman calls 911 and reports that her son is threatening her. In the middle of the call the line goes dead. 911 operator is not able to re-establish contact.
Police officer is dispatched, but the dispatcher is not able to give the officer any details about what the problem is, who the perps are, etc. only that a woman said she was being attacked by her son.
When the officer arrives on scene she sees a man running from the building being pursued by a woman with a knife. The officer orders everyone to stop and the woman to put down the knife. She then preceeds to frisk the man. The man starts beating the cop, takes her gun from her and attempts to shoot her. Fortunately the gun jams. Back up officers arrive and take the man into custody.
All the officers involved were wearing cameras.
At trial, the defense attorney argues that the officer had no reason to stop the man and frisk him, therefore everything that followed was self defense and hence justified.
The jury bought the argument and found the man innocent of attempted murder.
An illegal stop (it wasn’t, but that was the argument) justifies trying to kill the cop who stopped you?
Good to know that I’ve had COVID fear for fifty years because I despise public transportation.
Number one has there ever been a public transport system that paid for itself? If public transport is so valuable it should stand on it’s own. No need for non riders to support riders. Number two the fact that law enforcement isn’t doing it’s job is a big big problem. Whether it is the police or their bosses choosing to not enforce the law matters little to me. It has to stop. If the authorities don’t do their job citizens will, it is far better for law enforcement to do their job but if they don’t I understand people protecting their own life and property.
Even if on paper, they were paying for themselves, there are still the many hidden subsidies.
Such as not having to pay taxes because they are government owned.