"transport poverty"

AndrewJ said:

I'm reading about Kokoda at the moment, and I can't help but think of
what they would make of this story:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963181.htm

"Petrol prices weigh on the mind of any motorist, but there are
predictions that if the cost of fuel continues to rise, the poorest
Australians will be forced to quit work because travelling to and from
their jobs will be unaffordable."

I suspect that petrol will have to get a lot more expensive before
much changes.

Coincidentally, the ABC has a story today about how to fix this
problem:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963030.htm

Higher density, mixed-use zoning, walking distance to public
transport. They call it "new urbanism" now, but it's a formula that
would have been familiar to any pre-WW2 urban Australian.

BTH

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:29:21 -0000

AndrewJ said:

I'm reading about Kokoda at the moment, and I can't help but think of
what they would make of this story:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963181.htm

"Petrol prices weigh on the mind of any motorist, but there are
predictions that if the cost of fuel continues to rise, the poorest
Australians will be forced to quit work because travelling to and from
their jobs will be unaffordable."

Well yes. Because the jobs are usually low paid service jobs or factory
jobs, and while the job area might be serviced by public transport a
lot of the cheaper areas to live are not. And even if they are, the
transport takes appreciably longer than driving and is unreliable.

Suppose all the people earning more than say $40k total household income
are forbidden to live within say 20km of the CBD. The keen ones can
ride bikes, the rest can pay for other transport and let the poorer
people live close in.

Won't help the poorer people in factory jobs on the outskirts, but it's
a start.

So.. how far do you live from where you work, and do you earn more
than $40k?

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:40:27 -0700

BT Humble said:

Coincidentally, the ABC has a story today about how to fix this
problem:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963030.htm

Higher density, mixed-use zoning, walking distance to public
transport. They call it "new urbanism" now, but it's a formula that
would have been familiar to any pre-WW2 urban Australian.

Who still didn't travel much more than 30-40 mins to get to work...

Cut the number of people back to pre-WW2 levels and things might get
better. As it is, even if you have heaps transport, few people get to
live close to where they work. Plus just where are these trains
going? To the places the workers work, or just to the city?

Next week I work in North Ryde. Trains are supposed to go there end of
next year, we shall see. However, most people will have to go pretty
well all the way to the City and then back out to get there by train.
Bus services are pretty dreadful and like trains aren't cross-suburb.

Pre WW2 the people lived near the work, and even if they didn't
everything was closeish enough.

you want it to be like pre WW2, you drop house prices enough so that
people can move more often, you cluster housing around major factories
or employment areas (like NOrth Ryde), you bulldoze supermarkets, and
of course you cut the population by a third.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:29:21 -0000

AndrewJ said:

I'm reading about Kokoda at the moment, and I can't help but think of
what they would make of this story:

Quoted message said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963181.htm

Quoted message said:

"Petrol prices weigh on the mind of any motorist, but there are
predictions that if the cost of fuel continues to rise, the poorest
Australians will be forced to quit work because travelling to and from
their jobs will be unaffordable."

Well yes. Because the jobs are usually low paid service jobs or factory
jobs, and while the job area might be serviced by public transport a
lot of the cheaper areas to live are not. And even if they are, the
transport takes appreciably longer than driving and is unreliable.

Suppose all the people earning more than say $40k total household income
are forbidden to live within say 20km of the CBD. The keen ones can
ride bikes, the rest can pay for other transport and let the poorer
people live close in.

Won't help the poorer people in factory jobs on the outskirts, but it's
a start.

So.. how far do you live from where you work, and do you earn more
than $40k?

Zebee

I live 45km from where I work, in the middle of the city. But most
times I ride part of the way and then get on the train. I wouldn't
give up work if I didn't have the train, I'd ride there. Yes, I earn
more than $40k, but you can buy a lot of bicycles for $40K :-)

I'm not sure that public transport is the answer. Most times when I
catch the bus to the station I'm the only person on it. I feel royally
treated, but it's not cost effective to provide a bus just for me.

Seems like a mind-set to me. Car addiction: like smoking, fast food or
drugs.

Zebee said:

BTHumble said:

Coincidentally, the ABC has a story today about how to fix this
problem:

Quoted message said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963030.htm

Quoted message said:

Higher density, mixed-use zoning, walking distance to public
transport. They call it "new urbanism" now, but it's a formula that
would have been familiar to any pre-WW2 urban Australian.

Who still didn't travel much more than 30-40 mins to get to work...

Cut the number of people back to pre-WW2 levels and things might get
better. As it is, even if you have heaps transport, few people get to
live close to where they work. Plus just where are these trains
going? To the places the workers work, or just to the city?

Next week I work in North Ryde. Trains are supposed to go there end of
next year, we shall see. However, most people will have to go pretty
well all the way to the City and then back out to get there by train.
Bus services are pretty dreadful and like trains aren't cross-suburb.

Pre WW2 the people lived near the work, and even if they didn't
everything was closeish enough.

you want it to be like pre WW2, you drop house prices enough so that
people can move more often, you cluster housing around major factories
or employment areas (like NOrth Ryde), you bulldoze supermarkets, and
of course you cut the population by a third.

No problem, I'll get right onto it.

Will Tuesday be soon enough? ;-)

BTH

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:40:27 -0700

BT Humble said:

Coincidentally, the ABC has a story today about how to fix this
problem:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963030.htm

Higher density, mixed-use zoning, walking distance to public
transport. They call it "new urbanism" now, but it's a formula that
would have been familiar to any pre-WW2 urban Australian.

Who still didn't travel much more than 30-40 mins to get to work...

Cut the number of people back to pre-WW2 levels and things might get
better. As it is, even if you have heaps transport, few people get to
live close to where they work. Plus just where are these trains
going? To the places the workers work, or just to the city?

Next week I work in North Ryde. Trains are supposed to go there end of
next year, we shall see. However, most people will have to go pretty
well all the way to the City and then back out to get there by train.
Bus services are pretty dreadful and like trains aren't cross-suburb.

Pre WW2 the people lived near the work, and even if they didn't
everything was closeish enough.

you want it to be like pre WW2, you drop house prices enough so that
people can move more often, you cluster housing around major factories
or employment areas (like NOrth Ryde), you bulldoze supermarkets, and
of course you cut the population by a third.

A friend had a (lucrative and interesting) job in North Ryde a few years back.
He lives in Surry Hills. PT was his choice, but he only lasted 9 months. Now
back in the CBD.

I'm one of those poor buggers who live to close to where I work, so cycling
isn't worth it. Mostly I walk! [But I can deviously go on an extended journey
when the bike starts whining again].

BTW: Which third of the population did you have in mind?

Tomasso.

Quoted message said:

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

Suppose all the people earning more than say $40k total household income
are forbidden to live within say 20km of the CBD. The keen ones can
ride bikes, the rest can pay for other transport and let the poorer
people live close in.

That would put me in the next town (and since I'd be closer than 20km
to it's CBD I'd have to move again).

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:02:38 +1000

Tomasso said:

A friend had a (lucrative and interesting) job in North Ryde a few years back.
He lives in Surry Hills. PT was his choice, but he only lasted 9 months. Now
back in the CBD.

I live in Campsie, to take PT would be train then bus right now, and
longer than it takes to cycle the 20 odd km.

A number of people live in places like Castle Hill or Penrith so have
to go into town then back out.

Quoted message said:

BTW: Which third of the population did you have in mind?

The telephone sanitisers of course.

Oh, and the marketing execs.

Zebee
- who will keep the people who make doof doof gear for cars to
torture for pleasure.

Zebee Johnstone said:

of course you cut the population by a third.

Sorry, Pol Pot is no longer available.

Theo

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:02:38 +1000

Tomasso said:

A friend had a (lucrative and interesting) job in North Ryde a few years back.
He lives in Surry Hills. PT was his choice, but he only lasted 9 months. Now
back in the CBD.

I live in Campsie, to take PT would be train then bus right now, and
longer than it takes to cycle the 20 odd km.

A number of people live in places like Castle Hill or Penrith so have
to go into town then back out.

Quoted message said:

BTW: Which third of the population did you have in mind?

The telephone sanitisers of course.

That should wipe out a few call centres. Call-lateral Damage?

Quoted message said:

Oh, and the marketing execs.

Zebee
- who will keep the people who make doof doof gear for cars to
torture for pleasure.

Zebee Johnstone said:

Well yes. Because the jobs are usually low paid service jobs or factory
jobs, and while the job area might be serviced by public transport a
lot of the cheaper areas to live are not. And even if they are, the
transport takes appreciably longer than driving and is unreliable.

Here in Perth it seems like no one actually works in the
city, but half of the population work on the opposite side
of the city to where they live. I swear half of the rush
hour traffic is going right *through* the city.

In fact, the people that actually work in the city tend
to be in the higher paid professions and inner city property
is the most expensive, a reversal of traditional demographics I guess.

Quoted message said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

Well yes. Because the jobs are usually low paid service jobs or factory
jobs, and while the job area might be serviced by public transport a
lot of the cheaper areas to live are not. And even if they are, the
transport takes appreciably longer than driving and is unreliable.

Here in Perth it seems like no one actually works in the
city, but half of the population work on the opposite side
of the city to where they live. I swear half of the rush
hour traffic is going right *through* the city.

In fact, the people that actually work in the city tend
to be in the higher paid professions and inner city property
is the most expensive, a reversal of traditional demographics I guess.

yobs once lived in cottage homes, ain't social change amazing.

AndrewJ said:

I'm reading about Kokoda at the moment, and I can't help but think of
what they would make of this story:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963181.htm

"Petrol prices weigh on the mind of any motorist, but there are
predictions that if the cost of fuel continues to rise, the poorest
Australians will be forced to quit work because travelling to and from
their jobs will be unaffordable."

what a lot of tripe.

People quit => employers can't hire => pay goes up => people hired on
more $$. Problem solved.

or.. gee whiz.. maybe people need to move to where there is housing +
work (ie: out of the cities).

Its called market forces.

Yes. public transport sucks and needs to be improved, but the argument
here is spurious.

Zebee Johnstone said:

I live in Campsie, to take PT would be train then bus right now, and
longer than it takes to cycle the 20 odd km.

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

And if you did live in Rome that 20kms would take you clean across the city
and 10kms out into the surrounding country 🙂

Many millions of people do live inthese sorts of sustainable cities all
across Europe. They are not mega-cities, but compact cities where PT and
walking/cycling are much more viable than in Australian cities. We have the
most urbanised population in the world, living in the lowest density cities.

Change will happen once petrol begins to rise to very high prices. That
change will not be without pain.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

PeteSig said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

I live in Campsie, to take PT would be train then bus right now, and
longer than it takes to cycle the 20 odd km.

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

And if you did live in Rome that 20kms would take you clean across the city
and 10kms out into the surrounding country 🙂

Many millions of people do live inthese sorts of sustainable cities all
across Europe. They are not mega-cities, but compact cities where PT and
walking/cycling are much more viable than in Australian cities. We have the
most urbanised population in the world, living in the lowest density cities.

Change will happen once petrol begins to rise to very high prices. That
change will not be without pain.

Also, in the "old days" there used to be small towns located about every
20km between the larger towns. This was about the distance a horse could
go before requiring food and water. I predict a resurgence in these
towns as commuters on their bikes pull over for a power bar and coffee.

Friday

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:29:21 -0000

AndrewJ said:

I'm reading about Kokoda at the moment, and I can't help but think of
what they would make of this story:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963181.htm

"Petrol prices weigh on the mind of any motorist, but there are
predictions that if the cost of fuel continues to rise, the poorest
Australians will be forced to quit work because travelling to and from
their jobs will be unaffordable."

Well yes. Because the jobs are usually low paid service jobs or factory
jobs, and while the job area might be serviced by public transport a
lot of the cheaper areas to live are not. And even if they are, the
transport takes appreciably longer than driving and is unreliable.

Suppose all the people earning more than say $40k total household income
are forbidden to live within say 20km of the CBD. The keen ones can
ride bikes, the rest can pay for other transport and let the poorer
people live close in.

Won't help the poorer people in factory jobs on the outskirts, but it's
a start.

So.. how far do you live from where you work, and do you earn more
than $40k?

Zebee

In many of the European cities the inner city flats are cheap. As one moves
to the burbs property prices rise. Quite the opposite to the Australian
model of dead cities and home-staying suburbanites.

After many years in Aus I still can't get used to not being able to walk
down the road a little to grab a coffee or nip to the local corner shop. I
detest the centralisation of business (in the CBD) and shopping (in shopping
centres). Contrast that to small shops mixed in with living places; there is
little or no street life in most Aus cities.

Perhaps if we could get people away from Foxtel and game consoles we'd see a
change. Less need to drive, with public spaces near home and shops, cafes,
pubs (the sort where you go for a chat, not the sort we have here where you
go with your mates and ignore everyone else) and so on as a part of the
neighbourhood. We spend too much effort segregating homes from living and
consequently having to transport ourselves to the public places to interact
with others. There's a difference there too. In Europe, there are many
public spaces (think about the Italian town piazze) which form part of the
shared living space; people in the piazza are mostly locals and familiar. In
Aus, the entertainment places are removed from neighbourhoods so the people
there are strangers.

The upshot is that people live away from their work, from their
entertainment and from their shopping. How to get to those places (all vital
for modern living)? They drive.

I suppose that's why I bugger off to Europe every couple of years - I'd go
nuts living in the continuous Aussie isolation. I love living here - the
daily life is good - but I crave city life. It doesn't exist in Aus, not
really.

Over the last few years, unfortunately, there has been a rise in European
shopping malls and one can see the change. More cars on the road, less
social interaction. It's convenient to have all your shopping needs in one
spot, but we've traded social living for shopping convenience. I think
that's a bad trade...

My 2c...

Frank

Friday said:

Also, in the "old days" there used to be small towns located about
every 20km between the larger towns. This was about the distance a
horse could go before requiring food and water. I predict a
resurgence in these towns as commuters on their bikes pull over for a
power bar and coffee.

The 20 km town spacing came about because it is the maximum distance you can
go to town and get home again on the same day with a horse and cart. Not for
feed for the horse. You can carry that on the cart.

Theo

AndrewJ said:

I'm not sure that public transport is the answer. Most times when I
catch the bus to the station I'm the only person on it. I feel royally
treated, but it's not cost effective to provide a bus just for me.

Umm, public transport is both about and not about cost effectiveness.
"On one hand, it is the most cost effective (energy efficent blah blah)
method to move bulk people.

OTOH, the public transport network also needs to provide a reliable
transport method that runs at regular co-ordinated times so that people
are encoraged to use it rather than private motor vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Seems like a mind-set to me. Car addiction: like smoking, fast food or
drugs.

Exactly.

Theo Bekkers said:

Friday said:

Also, in the "old days" there used to be small towns located about
every 20km between the larger towns. This was about the distance a
horse could go before requiring food and water. I predict a
resurgence in these towns as commuters on their bikes pull over for a
power bar and coffee.

The 20 km town spacing came about because it is the maximum distance you can
go to town and get home again on the same day with a horse and cart. Not for
feed for the horse. You can carry that on the cart.

Theo

Either way, these small towns had a bank, a butcher, a baker, a
grocer, a school etc etc. And when you went to each of them, they said
Hi [insert name here]. I used to think my parents were nuts when they
complained about everything moving into large regional cities. 'But
you can do everything in the one centre now. You don't have to visit
five different stores to get your weeks shopping Etc Etc'. But they
were right to complain (I'm finding that the older I get the more
right about stuff my parents were). We live now were the neighbour
over the fence works, shops, educates their children, enjoys
recreational time etc in possible 5 or 6 different locations, and they
are all different to the places where I would do those things.

[Sigh] The good old days....

Brendo