Investment guru Jim Rogers advocates Free Public Transit

Investment guru Jim Rogers advocates Free Public Transit

Jim Rogers, well-known investment advisor, has moved to Singapore. In this article he advises the Singapore government to adopt fare-free public transportation. This link is a Google Translate link to the Chinese language Singapore newspaper zaobao.com

◆ Rogers proposed Singapore-wide free public transport

In order to effectively reduce carbon emissions, reducing air pollution, reducing the number of traffic accident injuries died to save open land, and so the benefits of the Government of Singapore can be considered to provide people with free public transport services.

Been an advocate of "anti-minority opposite direction," Rogers, to a reporter's question in this innovative proposal.

Rogers lived in the local two and a half, right here, many of the strict legal rules and regulations are agreed on the highway electronic toll gate system (ERP), also considered to be very intelligent traffic control measures.

He said: "ERP can be effective in reducing the road cars. To road users to pay more money, but also reasonable. This regard, the Government of Singapore can also be a higher level, to consider the use of any public transport to provide free services, This will further benefit the people. "

Singapore, although the area is small, but very high per capita carbon emissions, with some comparable European countries. According to the 2007/08 report, Singapore's carbon dioxide emissions account for 0.2% of the world, per capita annual emissions are 12.2 tonnes, is one of the highest emissions. The same reports that the United States, per capita carbon emissions are 20.6 tonnes, China 3.8 tonnes, 1.7 tonnes in Indonesia.

Rogers said: "If Singapore's bus, subway, light rail can free ride, it must attract a lot of the original drive their private cars out of people, abandoned the vehicle and switch to public transport. Road vehicles reduce carbon emissions immediately to solve the problem, also provide fresh air, to save and build roads, making highway land, the person died car accident injuries will be reduced, the many benefits is worthy of consideration by the Government.

Autos on Welfare - We can't afford it

Autos on Welfare - We can't afford it

In addition to the price paid by motorists at the pump, drivers and non-drivers alike spend additional money for each gallon of gas -- in the form of direct and indirect taxes and losses. Every year those subsidies cost America billions of dollars. The exact dollar amount is difficult to calculate, but every study done shows that it is at least twice the amount motorists pay at the pump.
...
1. Police, fire, ambulance; road construction & maintenance; other local government - paid for with taxes.
2. Property taxes lost from land cleared for freeways
3. Parking - free or cheaper parking is paid for with other taxes, or more expensive goods or services.
4. Air, water, land pollution - adds to medical expenses, loss of species and cleanup costs.
5. Noise, vibration damage to structures - adds to medical expenses and repair costs.
6. Global warming - adds to medical expenses, loss of species and other costs.
7. Petroleum supply line policing, security, petroleum production subsidies - increases taxes for defense.
8. Trade deficit, infrastructure deficit - increases costs of goods.
9. Sprawl, loss of transportation options - increases personal and corporate transportation costs.
10. Uncompensated auto accidents - increases personal costs.
11. Congestion- increases personal costs and losses.


Click on this link to read the rest of this US report: Sierra Club

23
Feb 10

Adam Butler & Free Public Transport

Adam Butler is an Australian blogger and advocate of Zero Fare Public Transport. Recently, Adam posted a column on his website called The Public Transport Bandwagon. It’s an excellent piece of writing with an interesting hook.
As Adam explains, the Victoria government in Australia has recently spent over $1 billion dollars on an automated ticketing system. The system will cost additional millions of dollars per year to operate.
As the transit system itself can only hope to generate less than a third of its revenue from the farebox, wouldn’t it make sense to simply eliminate fares entirely? Surely the savings realized from eliminating the cost and hassle of ticketing would more than offset the loss in fares.
A similar argument is made over at the Free Public Transit Blog.
Having just encountered this concept, I’ll admit I’m a bit skeptical. But I’m also intrigued. Very intrigued. I whole-heartedly concur that reducing fares is essential but feel that a Freemium model would be more appropriate than merely Free.
But who knows? A smallish city in Belgium seems to have adopted the free model, and they don’t seem to be turning back:

ShareThis

From the 'Gondola Project' website.

Well - who would believe it?

Bailouts for banks - fare hikes for us.

...And that’s the key. Instead of funding services for working people, provincial and federal governments have chosen to use taxpayer money to bail out big industries and banks. The auto industry got $4-billion loans so that they would not collapse—but the loans did not include provisions for preserving jobs. A $12-billion fund was created to encourage car sales—inefficient, polluting cars that few people want to buy...Noaman Ali BasicsNews

Costs of NOT HAVING free public transit

Costs of NOT HAVING free public transit

New York City – The average New York City driver loses $1,888 each year as a result of driving on roads that lack some desirable safety features, have poor pavement conditions or have inadequate capacity to meet travel demands. In total, New York State motorists lose $16.4 billion each year due to traffic crashes, additional vehicle operating costs and congestion-related delays, according to a new report released today by TRIP, a Washington, DC based national transportation organization.

Tripnet [PDF]

CARnivores

CARnivores

New study: "Motor vehicles- the greatest contributor to atmospheric warming"

Road Transport Key Driver In Global Warming In their analysis, motor vehicles emerged as the greatest contributor to atmospheric warming now and in the near term. Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and greenhouse gases that promote warming, while emitting few aerosols that counteract it. by Staff WritersGreenbelt MD (SPX) Feb 19, 2010For decades, climatologists have studied the gases and particles that have potential to alter Earth's climate. They have discovered and described certain airborne chemicals that can trap incoming sunlight and warm the climate, while others cool the planet by blocking the Sun's rays. Now a new study led by Nadine Unger of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City offers a more intuitive way to understand what's changing the Earth's climate. Rather than analyzing impacts by chemical species, scientists have analyzed the climate impacts by different economic sectors. Each part of the economy, such as ground transportation or agriculture, emits a unique portfolio of gases and aerosols that affect the climate in different ways and on different timescales. "We wanted to provide the information in a way that would be more helpful for policy makers," Unger said. "This approach will make it easier to identify sectors for which emission reductions will be most beneficial for climate and those which may produce unintended consequences." In a paper published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Unger and colleagues described how they used a climate model to estimate the impact of 13 sectors of the economy from 2000 to 2100. They based their calculations on real-world inventories of emissions collected by scientists around the world, and they assumed that those emissions would stay relatively constant in the future. Snapshots of the FutureIn their analysis, motor vehicles emerged as the greatest contributor to atmospheric warming now and in the near term. Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and greenhouse gases that promote warming, while emitting few aerosols that counteract it. The researchers found that the burning of household biofuels - primarily wood and animal dung for home heating and cooking - contribute the second most warming. And raising livestock, particularly methane-producing cattle, contribute the third most. On the other end of the spectrum, the industrial sector releases such a high proportion of sulfates and other cooling aerosols that it actually contributes a significant amount of cooling to the system. And biomass burning - which occurs mainly as a result of tropical forest fires, deforestation, savannah and shrub fires - emits large amounts of organic carbon particles that block solar radiation. The new analysis offers policy makers and the public a far more detailed and comprehensive understanding of how to mitigate climate change most effectively, Unger and colleagues assert. "Targeting on-road transportation is a win-win-win," she said. "It's good for the climate in the short term and long term, and it's good for our health." Due to the health problems caused by aerosols, many developed countries have been reducing aerosol emissions by industry. But such efforts are also eliminating some of the cooling effect of such pollution, eliminating a form of inadvertent geoengineering that has likely counteracted global warming in recent decades. "Warming should accelerate as we continue to remove the aerosols," said Unger. "We have no choice but to remove the aerosol particulate pollution to protect human and ecosystem health. That means we'll need to work even harder to reduce greenhouse gases and warming pollutants." By the year 2100, Unger's projections suggest that the impact of the various sectors will change significantly. By 2050, electric power generation overtakes road transportation as the biggest promoter of warming. The industrial sector likewise jumps from the smallest contribution in 2020 to the third largest by 2100. "The differences are because the impacts of greenhouse gases accumulate and intensify over time, and because they persist in the atmosphere for such long periods," said Unger. "In contrast, aerosols rain out after a few days and can only have a short-term impact." Factoring in CloudsFor each sector of the economy, Unger's team analyzed the effects of a wide range of chemical species, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate, sulfate, and ozone. The team also considered how emissions from each part of the economy can impact clouds, which have an indirect effect on climate, explained Surabi Menon, a coauthor of the paper and scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif. Some aerosols, particularly sulfates and organic carbon, can make clouds brighter and cause them to last longer, producing a cooling effect. At the same time, one type of aerosol called black carbon, or soot, actually absorbs incoming solar radiation, heats the atmosphere, and drives the evaporation of low-level clouds. This process, called the semi-direct aerosol effect, has a warming impact. The new analysis shows that emissions from the power, biomass burning, and industrial sectors of the economy promote aerosol-cloud interactions that exert a powerful cooling effect, while on-road transportation and household biofuels exacerbate cloud-related warming. More research on the effects of aerosols is still needed, Unger cautions. "Although our estimates of the aerosol forcing are consistent with those listed by the International Panel on Climate Change, a significant amount of uncertainty remains."

Students Say: ‘NO FARE!’

By John Tarleton
From the February 19, 2010 issue | Posted in John Tarleton , Local | Email this article

Under the MTA’s plan, students would be charged half-fares starting in September of this year and full fares beginning in September 2011. The fare hikes would cost families with children who use mass transit to travel to school about $800 per year, per student, and could reduce the opportunity for less well-off students to attend schools outside their neighborhood district.

The MTA faces an operating deficit of almost $800 million in 2010 due in part to cuts in state assistance.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has called the elimination of free student MetroCards “unconscionable.” However, others question the priorities of the mayor and the MTA, which is continuing to build the $2.1 billion extension of the 7 train to the far west side of Manhattan at the behest of Bloomberg. The city is providing much of the financing for the project.

“The MTA’s going belly up and the most important thing we can do is save the free student MetroCards,” Assemblymember Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), chair of the Authorities Committee, told Metro Feb. 4. “And some of that money is now going to build half a train line.”

From 'The Indypendent', NYC Independent Media Center.

US students are planning mass demonstrations against education cuts (including cuts to student transport concessions) across the country on 4 March.

"Free public transport? - You know what: it works!"

Check out this 'TodayTonight' broadcast from Channel 7News ... a little city in Belgium, Hasselt, shows the way to overcome chronic traffic congestion.

FareFreeNZ editor

Free public transport on Yahoo!7 Video There are more trains, trams, buses, and ferries than ever before in our cities but traffic congestion is getting worse.

Durham, NC Mayor shows courage and common sense

Durham, NC Mayor shows courage and common sense

In his annual “State of the City” address, Bill Bell highlighted several of the same issues that were of top concern in last year’s update: transportation, jobs and crime reduction
...
1 cent - a property tax rate increase that could provide free bus transportation to Durham residents (This is under discussion.) Triangulator

Let's hope the people of Durham can see the elegance of free buses. They will get their money back 100 times over.

Adam Butler: "...free public transport is a must"

The Public Transport Bandwagon

In Sydney, over the last few months, something has been built. It isn’t something you can touch or something you can see, but nevertheless it now exists. It is the Public Transport Bandwagon. More and more influential people are starting to get on board the bandwagon and the media are even starting to look forward (for a change).

There have been countless studies, submissions and reports into the transport chaos that exists in Sydney. In a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Gittens suggested that “at our behest, successive state governments have been pursuing a magnificent dream, to make Sydney a place fit for cars to be driven on all occasions.” I don’t think for a moment that this is an accurate statement. None of my friends, colleagues or acquaintances have ever suggested the notion that building more roads would fix things. It is a stupid notion. I think that successive governments have been lobbied by powerful interest groups year after year and they have won. It is well know that the Roads & Traffic Authority (a government organisation) is a very powerful force and what interest would they have in promoting public transport? I am not suggesting that they are alone, groups such as the NRMA, Linfox, Taxi Council, Transurban, Trucking Association all give “donations” to the major political parties and this buys influence.

As far back as 2001 Ron Christie (former head of State Rail) has been raising alarm bells. He warned “the system is rapidly approaching gridlock”. The state government’s lack of vision, and its inability to commit to a long-term plan for transport is a critical failing that threatens the state’s future. Mr Christie’s landmark 2001 report envisioned new rail links to the north-west and south-west growth centres, and, most importantly, a second line through the city and under the harbour, eliminating congestion on the network for decades. This line “will be essential”, his report found, by between 2011 and 2015. It’s already 2010!

I have mentioned in previous posts that Australia’s productivity commission estimates traffic congestion in Sydney will cost the economy $8billion within a few years. It is so serious that even the PM has weighed in on state affairs.

It is no secret that I am a passionate advocate of free public transport. Evidence overseas suggests that free public transport will halve (at least) congestion, significantly decrease traffic accidents and their associated health and insurance costs, put money back into people’s pockets to keep the economy ticking over and last but definitely not least, reduce air borne pollution by huge amounts.

It is VERY unfortunate, now that the public transport bandwagon is built, that none of the occupants of the bandwagon have even mentioned the notion of free public transport. Instead they speak of “an integrated fare and ticketing system” as if that will be the draw card for people. In Victoria, the government has spent over $1billion on a new “integrated” ticketing system that will cost millions to run each year. In NSW the government has spent well over $100million on a FAILED system and will need to start from scratch. My argument is and will always be, why spend so much money and resources on funding a system that can only ever retrieve way less than a third of the cost of running the system. This is made even more ridiculous when you consider that free public transport will save these amounts. At the same time it will improve the state’s productivity and boost economic activity via people spending more and attracting businesses to the state. There would be countless unforeseen benefits such as people catching a (free) train to regional areas and thereby increasing regional tourism.

I truly believe, with all the logic I can muster, that free public transport is a must. There will be naysayers who will bag such a notion but that is because they cannot see we live in a system of interaction where positive changes will flow through society. Surely this is worth all the money in the world.

Adam Butler, Sydney - 'Be the change you want to be' [17 February 2010]

ShareThis

Remove the fares, remove the traffic chaos

Houston Considering Community-Supported Transportation

Posted by Laura Walsh in transportation. Tagged: cars, community-supported transportation, public transportation, transformation. Leave a Comment

America’s traditional response in our ongoing war against traffic has been to build more roads and build more highways.

When those become too crowded, we widen those roads and widen those highways and when those become too crowded, we build more roads and build more highways and when those become too crowded, we again widen those roads and widen those highways.

It never ends, the roads keep being built, the cars keep coming.

The rush hour only gets longer and longer and our approach has stayed the same for decade upon traffic-snarled decade.

Houston’s new mayor Annise Parker is considering a different tactic in her car-dominated city where 70% of residents drive alone to work.

Welcome to Houston! (Photo by aloofdork, courtesy of flickr)

Parker has been mayor for just over a month and is already making major waves by suggesting that Houston’s Metropolitan Transit Authority explore the possibility of free service.

Only 20% of the operating costs of the MTA are derived from fares and by subsidizing the entire system, the city would be able to offer mobility to all, including those that are too young or too old to drive, as well as those unable to afford a car. Parker wants to shift the focus of the MTA to ensure that those “who depend on public transportation should receive priority in Metro’s planning.”

We offer free public education to our citizens, why not offer free transit to get them to work and school? Many cities offer trash and recycling services, employment and career assistance, police and fire response, parks, pools, and community centers.

Why not offer community-supported transportation?

Removing the upfront cost of transit makes it more efficient as buses and trains will not have to wait for people to pay their fare before continuing on their route. Removing the upfront cost of transit has been shown to greatly increase ridership, inevitably removing cars from the road and reducing congestion and pollution.

The town of Hasselt, Belgium was profiled by Dave Olsen after city officials introduced free public buses with the principal aim in making it “the natural option for getting around. And it did — immediately.” On the first day, ridership increased by nearly 800%. The first full year showed a constant increase of 900% over the previous year and by the second year was up by 1,223 %. A major motivation for officials in Hasselt was to “to guarantee the right to mobility for all residents in Hasselt… that an improved public transport system simply means a better use of the public space that will not only improve the quality of traffic, but the quality of life in general.”

Of course it wouldn’t be as easy as removing the fare box. Additional bus lines and stops need to be added, bus shelters need to be improved or installed, and service needs to be consistently fast and reliable.

It must to be more convenient and cheaper to take transit then to drive. By removing the fare, the cost equation disappears for many people. When transportation is actually public, when it is actually a service, people will use it because it will save them money. More people on transit means less people driving alone.

When 40 people elect to take the bus instead of driving alone, that takes 40 cars off the road and makes travel faster, more convenient, and more efficient for everyone.

Let’s take this solution to our own communities.

From 'reimagine an urban space' blogsite.

Broadway now permanently car-free

Can big cities be transformed into people-friendly spaces? Look what's happening in New York. Mayor Bloomberg has also suggested introducing free public transport.

Check out this report from Pittsburgh-based blogsite 'reimagine an urban space' - which also advocates for free and accessible public transport.

FareFreeNZ editor

Yesterday Mayor Bloomberg of New York City made an historic announcement that will have wide-reaching implications for street design and public space transformation around the country.

Broadway in Times Square (42nd St. to 47th St) and Herald Square (33rd St. to 35th St) will now be permanently closed to traffic. What initially started as an experiment to improve public safety and traffic flow in May 2009 is being widely touted as an outstanding success.

The result? Traffic speeds are up on diverted routes, pedestrian and motorist injuries have plummeted (down 63%), businesses are benefiting from increased foot traffic, noise pollution is down and the area is dominated by people rather than modes of transportation.

The move to make these stretches of Broadway permanently car-free is supported by 74% of people who work in the area, according to a survey conducted by the Times Square Alliance.

Take a look at the stark difference in the Before and After pictures of Times Square:

Times Square Before, photo by NYC DOT

Times Square After, photo by NYC DOT

The transformation has widespread support from the business community as well and was called “a 21st century idea” by Dan Biederman, director of the 34th Street Partnership (thanks to Streetsblog).

Last October I argued that temporary transformation is a more effective and legitimate way to gauge public opinion:

“People are used to roads and streets and public space being devoted to cars. That’s why it is essential to make the changes initially and give people the opportunity to feel and experience the delight of a public plaza and then to vote. New York and San Francisco are making temporary changes to demonstrate the value of returning space to people and have promised to return them to business as usual if that’s what people want.”

I’ll repeat: If you build cities for cars, you get cars. If you build cities for people, you get people.

New York did this and people love it. The rest of the country should begin following suit immediately.

UK report warns of the end of cheap oil.

The Green Party responds to the UK study with a call for an end to road building and to improve public transport, which we endorse.

But to be really effective in putting a halt to car and oil dependency we urgently need to switch the government money allotted to more motorways, to fund an efficient network of publically-owned quality transit services in the cities - and make it free to ride anywhere, anytime.

FareFreeNZ editor

Green Party statement 16/02/2010

Industry leaders warn of imminent oil crunch

The Green Party is calling on our Government to prepare for a significant oil crunch, in light of an industry led report warning the UK Government about the threat of rising oil prices.

The UK’s Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security has released its second in-depth analysis of the risks to the economy from the end of cheap oil.

“Our Government needs to listen to industry leaders such as Richard Branson and Brian Souter. Unlike the financial crisis, we cannot say we weren’t warned,” Dr Russel Norman, Green Party Co-Leader said today.

The Taskforce states that the impact of Peak Oil will include sharp increases in the cost of travel, food, heating and retail goods. It finds that the transport sector will be particularly hard hit, with more vulnerable members of society the first to feel the impact.

“John Key’s Government must stop and reflect on the wisdom of building more roads instead of improving public transport,” Dr Norman said.

“A key finding of the Taskforce is that oil prices will be extremely volatile and will threaten economic and social stability.

“Domestic gas, petrol and electricity prices will also be affected as people reach for alternatives. Our agriculture sector is particularly vulnerable because of its dependence on fossil fuels for fertilizer, irrigation and mechanical power.

“John Key is now on notice from the world’s industry leaders that one of the biggest threats facing New Zealand today is our dependence on oil.

“I call on the Government to convene its own taskforce and prepare New Zealand for the imminent oil crunch,” Dr Norman said.

The Industry Taskforce Report can be downloaded here:

http://peakoiltaskforce.net/download-the-report/2010-peak-oil-report/

We are everywhere!

A new Canadian website advocates for free public transport

The move towards free transit is global. Here is an item from the new Toronto website "Peoples' Transit" - check out the list of fare-free transit websites around the world in the right hand column of this site.

FareFreeNZ editor

"What if we built a green, expansive public transit? What if it were free?"

Did you know that the government has set aside $125-billion of your money to fund banks? Did you know that auto companies received $4-billion of your money in funding? that the government has created a $12-billion fund of your money to encourage car-buying to keep these companies afloat?

These banks are making massive profits. The car companies are producing cars no one wants to buy, and that additionally are big polluters and clog up our roads. These subsidies may preserve some jobs in the short-term, but thousands have already lost their auto-producing jobs and more cuts will be on the way.

Why is the government propping up the rich with the money of working people instead of reinvesting it in their interests? Why do we get fare hikes, when the rich get bailouts?

Did you know that the TTC shortfall for this year to be covered by fare hikes is just $50-million? In comparison to the big bailouts, that’s peanuts. But for working people, already paying some of the highest transit fares in North America, paying more is not an option.

What if the government spent that money on building the kind of public transit infrastructure necessary for the City of Toronto, and spent that money on keeping it operating so that more jobs were created, more people started sustainable, local businesses, and people in any part of Toronto could access any other part of Toronto?

What if we built a green, expansive, public transit?

What if it were free?

It’s doable. It would be a true People’s Transit.

Read more about People’s Transit. Tell us what you think: peoples.transit [at] gmail.com

"A commonsense approach" for late night public safety

Public transport should be fare-free and frequent 24/7.

A major concern for all parents in cities everywhere is the safety of their kids getting home after a night on the town: Will they be stranded downtown and get into strife? Will they be tempted to get into a car driven by a driver under the influence of drugs or drink?

As this recent Sydney Morning Herald report suggests - a quality free public transport service available around the clock would get everyone home safely.

FareFreeNZ editor.

• Clubs call for public transport boost

February 5, 2010

AAP

Providing free public transport for people leaving clubs late at night could help prevent alcohol-related violence, an inquiry has heard.

A Queensland parliamentary committee is on Friday taking evidence in its inquiry into ways to tackle alcohol-related violence.

Clubs Queensland chief executive Doug Flockhart said a common sense approach was needed to stem violence, not new regulations and laws.

Mr Flockhart said governments and councils needed to treat each night of operation in entertainment precincts as a special event.

He said special events such as football matches involved free transport and other amenities.

"Complimentary transport solutions at exit times and adequate amenities in the vicinity of entertainment venues would go a long way toward improving public safety," Mr Flockhart said.

"Safely and efficiently moving people on are matters that are taken into account for a Broncos match or Riverfire, yet the large crowds that are congregating in places like the Valley, or Cavill Avenue on the Gold Coast, are largely ignored."

He said many community clubs were struggling financially and would be burdened by any new regulation.

The inquiry continues.

©

Time for a 'big shake up' in Auckland too?

Houston, Texas, is the fourth largest city in the USA, with a population of 2.2 million.

Just like Auckland, it is afflicted with the sick-city problems of urban sprawl, car dependency, inadequate transit services, an over-abundance of congested motorways, pollution and poor pedestrian-friendly facilities.

The newly-elected Mayor, Annise Parker (Democrat) plans a major revamp of public transport to turn this around - including considering fare-free public transport.

With the advent of the new 'super city', it is time Auckland embarked on a 'big shake-up' too.

Editor: FarefreeNZ

Houston Looks At Reshaping Transit

• Texas
• Free Fare
• Government / Politics
• Houston
• Public Transit
• The Houston Chronicle
• Transportation

Posted by: Nate Berg

11 February 2010 - 11:00am

Houston Mayor Annise Parker is considering a big shake-up of the city's public transportation, including the option of transitioning to a fare-free system.

"Parker has signaled that she is not wedded to conventional wisdom about Metro, even suggesting eliminating fares to increase lagging ridership. While acknowledging that Metro would have to cope with the loss of fare revenues — $66 million in 2009, about 20 percent of its expenses — she said it is a discussion the agency needs to have.

The mayor, who appoints five of the nine members of Metro's board, said she envisions a seamless network of transportation services that move people efficiently throughout the eight-county Houston region."

Reports are due at the end of the months to help guide the region's investment in transit and transit oriented development.

Full Story: Mayor: Metro riders come first

Source: The Houston Chronicle, February 8, 2010

Bus fare increases "short-sighted, self-defeating": Green Party

Further increases to bus fares are short-sighted and will drive more Wellingtonians to use their cars, the Green Party said today.

“If the Regional Council is genuine about wanting to grow bus patronage, increasing fares by as much as 50 per cent will be a disaster,” said Green Party spokesperson Sue Kedgley.

“Lower numbers of people using the buses will lead to further fare rises, and you quickly spiral into a vicious cycle of patronage loss, service cutbacks, and further congestion on our roads as more and more people take cars rather than public transport.”

Increasing fares at a time when actual service levels are falling is another slap in the face for Wellington’s commuters, said Ms Kedgley.

“Buses frequently don’t run on time, and we’re still waiting for real time information at bus stops to tell passengers how long they will have to wait for the next bus. And a single ticket that will cover multiple trips on different modes is still a pipe dream.”

“Passengers will be left scratching their head wondering where the extra value for money is coming from with their increased fares.”

The Green Party is concerned that hidden subsidies for car drivers make driving a comparatively cheaper option over more sustainable commuting alternatives like public transport, walking, and cycling. Until the cost of driving reflects the true costs of pollution, urban sprawl, and land used unproductively for car parking, public transport will struggle to be competitive with driving.

Green’s alternative plan for Wellington’s transport problems:
http://www.greens.org.nz/transport/wellington/plan

Contact:
Sue Kedgley, MP
P 04 817 6728, M 021 270 9088
Robert Ashe, Political & Media Advisor:
P 04 817 6714

---

10/02/2010

"Standing at a crossroad"

Travel doesn’t have to cost the Earth

“If you were to design the ultimate system, you would have mass transit be free and charge an enormous amount for cars.” Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York.
We are standing at a crossroad: in order to reduce our oil dependency and make our cities climate smart, we have to change our ways of traveling. It is a fact that the future is on a track, and with free public transport everyone can come along for the ride.
Free public transport is a way to reward groups of people who travel in an environmental-friendly way and an economic incentive to choose a mean of transport that, from a social and environmental perspective, is obviously better than driving. The introduction of free public transport would mean more money for practically all commuters, and letting the car drivers chip in and pay for public transport would give them a good incentive to leave their cars at home. It is also a matter of gender equality: today men are over-represented among car drivers and investments in public transport are investments in women’s mobility.
The decline in car-traffic and surge in the demand for public transportation that free public transport would render, would in turn stimulate a much needed capacity and comfort increase in the public transport system. This, combined with the fact that ticket collectors, controllers and guards could be retrained to be bus drivers, train drivers, station hosts and traffic hosts would make the public transport much more attractive than it is today. Also, free public transport would increase the purchasing power of everyone using it, which would support regional economies.
But free public transport shouldn’t be seen as a stand-alone reform, but rather as one part of a bigger package of reforms to make our cities more green, liveable and fair. Free public transport should be combined with infrastructural changes to promote walking and biking, at least for shorter distances, as well as congestion fees and other measures to discourage car driving.
It is great to promote walking and biking as alternatives to driving, and of course these two means of transportation are the most ecological and healthy. But we must acknowledge that not everyone has the luxury of being able to bike or walk to work, school or their leisure activities. Kids, people with disabilities and elderly, people living in suburbs far away from their work and people living in cities where the weather just isn’t suitable for being outside most of the year – for all of them biking or walking is hardly ever an option and this is something that needs to be addressed.
We also have to consider the fact that being able to walk or bike to work is, just like driving, often a question of class. It is seldom working class people who are living in, or close to, the city centre or their work. Free public transport is certainly a reform to promote green alternatives to car-traffic and encourage a modal shift from car to public transport. But one of the most important aspects concerns a better redistribution of wealth in the society. Even though almost everyone would, in one way or another, benefit from free public transport, the biggest winners are people with low incomes living in suburbs far away from the city centre.
“A win-win solution, if I ever saw one” Irwin Kellner, chief economist for MarketWatch (a part of the Wall Street Journal).
In September 2009 Planka.nu released their urban transport planning manifesto Travel doesn’t have to cost the Earth, where they propose five concrete measures to make the transport sector in Stockholm, Sweden, climate-smart and socially fair.
www.planka.nu/rapporter
Success stories
In 1996, the Belgian city Hasselt introduced free public transport under the motto “The city guarantees the right of mobility for everyone”. At the same time the mayor proposed to give absolute primacy on the city’s Green Boulevard to public transport. Since then, bus ridership has increased by over 1,300%.
Ockelbo in Sweden coordinated all their public and semi-public transport such as regular buses, school buses and mobility service into one system and made it free. Since then the ridership has increased by more than 260% and almost half of those were former car drivers. The municipality even saved money from the reform due to a decrease in administrative costs.
Alexander Berthelsen


Editorial - "Carbusters": journal of the carfree movement
carbusters.org

What if?

What if?

"The logic of free public transit is compelling"

Circulator Brings Free Transit To Baltimore

• By Zach Rosenberg
• January 18, 2010 |
• 10:00 am |
• Categories: Mass Transit

The recession has hit public transit hard. Government funding is being slashed at all levels, and rising ridership isn’t bringing in enough revenue to keep systems running at full capacity. That’s got transit agencies cutting services or raising fares even as more people depend upon them. So it seems like an odd time for Baltimore to introduce a free bus system.
Charm City Circulator consists of 21 hybrid electric buses running seven days a week. The first line, the Orange Route, launched Jan. 11 and eventually will be joined by two other lines. When all is said and done, the Circulator will connect landmarks like the Inner Harbor and the Johns Hopkins hospital complex to the city center and surrounding neighborhoods.
Perhaps more significantly, it will provide a link to other forms of transit, including trains, light rail, buses and water taxis.

Some cities, like Seattle, still offer free rides downtown during peak business and commute times, but Baltimore is adding the service when many others are eliminating it. Portland, Oregon let people get around downtown at no cost with the Fareless Square until killing the program after 30 years to save money. And New York let students ride for free until budget cuts killed the program.
The reasoning behind free transit boils down to encouraging economic activity in a specific area — i.e. getting people into the downtown shopping and entertainment districts — or getting people in and out quickly and efficiently. The Charm City Circulator routes suggest that although it will definitely benefit the locals, tourists and commuters are the real targets.
The logic of free public transit is compelling: Despite the high costs and massive subsidies implicit in driving, forking over a relatively small fee to ride a bus or subway is a psychological barrier to getting people out of cars. Even the most efficiently run buses can be crowded and slow, but by running at frequent intervals on dedicated lanes between fixed stops — as the Circulator does — delays can be kept to a minimum. The bus might not stop next to, or even near, every rider’s point of origin or destination, but it ensures a measure of proximity for most riders. Rare indeed is the mass transit system that shoulders its own financial burden, and the free bus systems that last generally have dedicated sources of income aside from direct subsidies. Baltimore’s system is financed by a 16 percent tax on parking, which will raise about $5 million annually.
Yonah Freemark of The Transport Politic worries systems like the Circulator create a two-tiered transit system, but the system — which came online six months behind schedule — generally has been received as a welcome project with strong support from Baltimore’s political and business communities.

Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/circulator-brings-free-transit-to-baltimore/#ixzz0eRkXb6vi

Car giants 'give false hopes of electric or hydrogen cars'

Car companies are raising false hopes of emission-free motoring in order to continue profiting from large, fuel-hungry vehicles, according to a recent study from Oxford University.

The study, edited by Sir David King, the UK government's former chief scientific adviser, says that cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells are not expected to be available widely until after 2050 because of the high cost of the platinum in their catalysts. Battery-powered vehicles will also remain a niche product because of their limited battery life.

The report accuses car manufacturers of exaggerating the potential for switching to hydrogen or battery-powered vehicles in the next decade. It urges government to impose higher taxes of large inefficient vehicle use, and to reinvest the proceeds into better public transport and encourage walking and cycling.

The future for low-carbon transport

15 January 2009

The best way of cutting emissions from road transport is to reduce the size and weight of conventional cars, a major Smith School report says.

The School’s Future of Mobility Roadmap, which assesses the potential for low-carbon transport on land, by air and sea, calls for large, inefficient vehicles to be taxed and the proceeds used to improve public transport and encourage cycling and walking.

Dr Oliver Inderwildi, the lead author of the study, tells The Times today that electric and hydrogen vehicles are likely to remain niche products for many years because of limited battery life and the high cost of platinum, which is needed for the catalysts in hydrogen fuelled cars.

Better technology could significantly cut emissions from aircraft and shipping but incentives and regulation will be needed to encourage users to switch to low-carbon forms of transport, however.

The study assesses a wide range of options for reducing emissions from transport. It says that algae-based biofuels could significantly cut transport emissions in the future but that existing biofuels are limited because of land shortages and food security concerns.

Even so, reducing the carbon footprint of cars and replacing domestic flights with high speed rail could still produce “drastic emissions savings."

“There is ample opportunity for emissions reductions by further improvements of currently available technology combined with a change in user habits."

Benefits would include increased mobility, reduced air pollution and the easing of congestion. “Improving our transport systems would reap many environmental benefits, while green technologies could create jobs in underdeveloped areas.

“Previous revolutions such as the transformation of our communication system in the 1990s have had a tremendous impact on economic growth."

The study warns, however, that action must be taken immediately to have any impact on climate change because of the long lifetime of transport fleets and subsequent delays in technological impact.

“Many technological options are already available and, in combination with infrastructure investments, [will] support the economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide other long-term benefits."

Yet another reason for free public transport

Many serious Health issues in industrial countries can be directly attributed to airborne pollution. Sydney has its fair share of pollution due to the contribution from transport. Making public transport free would reduce these dangerous pollutants to such a degree that its effect on the health system and long term savings can only be estimated.

NOx is mainly made up of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide. These are primary pollutants emitted when fossil fuels are burnt, i.e. fuel in motor vehicles, coal in industry.

VOCs mainly come from unburnt petrol and diesel from motor vehicle exhaust, fuel vapours from petrol stations and petrochemical industries, vapours from paints, aerosols and solvents used in commercial and domestic activities, as well as natural emissions from vegetation and fires.

PM10 is particle pollution. It occurs when tiny airborne particles are formed in the atmosphere and, without any wind to scatter them, they reach high concentrations and affect visibility. These particles are generally less than 50 micrometers (µm). You’d think these microscopic particles were too small to do much damage. Unfortunately, size is their strength. Fine particles are light and tend to stay floating in the air for days or weeks until they’re removed by rain. During this time they can travel remarkable distances from their source and affect air quality right across a region. Larger, heavier particles stay in the air for a shorter time before being deposited locally, sometimes soiling or damaging materials, but certainly adding to the grimy look of some built-up areas.

It is time for free public transport.

Adam Butler

(information in this post is taken from the NSW Government website “Let’s Clear the Air“)