Peak Oil On The Campaign Trail: The Black Hole Of Rail Funding  

You've set up a straw man there, BigGav. The article didn't say there would be no auto traffic in the future or that no money should be spent on road infrastructure. What it did was identify that with high fuel costs comes much lower volumes of traffic. New motorways and tunnels are intended to relieve congestion, and since that congestion won't exist in the future, there is no need to spend money that could otherwise be spent on projects that would see a greater return on investment.

Is making life easy for motorists now a smart move? Cities such as Portland, US and Copenhagen have demonstrated that adoption of alternative means of transport is far more successful when auto support is sacrificed or somehow made more costly. How you feel about that may depend on your affinity with the car as a mode of transport. As a cyclist who lives with the abuse of cars on a daily basis, I feel qualified to say that you can't have everything.

The quote from Jeanette:

One thing I do not share with the member, I suspect, is a view that higher oil prices will lead to an
abandonment of the private motorcar

That sounds like "no auto traffic in future" to me.

New roads are still useful - by alleviating congestion, they increase average fuel efficiency.

I think we have 3 decades of population growth left and that private motor usage will increase - not as fast as walking, cycling and public transport will, but nevertheless it will increase, with vehicles becoming ever more fuel efficient and eventually becoming completely electric.

There is a freeway near me that has a 3 lane bike path running alongside (and often underneath) it - 2 lanes for bikes, one for pedestrians.

The freeway itself has reserved bus lanes, and there is also a train line running nearby.

Its a great example showing how everyone's needs can be satisfied.

I don't see the need for the freeway disappearing anytime - soon or in the future.

I might add that I cycle to work every day and with decent road design cyclists and cars can get along.

The key is getting cycle lanes built - not trying to get cars off the roads.

As far as I can tell Jeanette did exactly what you did: misrepresent the opinion of Cullen.

You paint a happy picture of a freeway that satisfies everyone's needs, conveniently leaving out the cost of the project, alternative use for the space and resources taken and how the capacity will go unused once fuel is prohibitively expensive and/or in short supply. Relief of congestion now only increases dependence on motor vehicles, so it does not help in the long run.

"The key is getting cycle lanes built - not trying to get cars off the roads." Retrofitting any city with proper bike infrastructure must sacrifice some car space or convenience. The bike infrastructure I have experience with in Adelaide and Brisbane does this poorly, merely painting a line on the road to put you in proximity to car doors and road traffic. Needless to say biking is not especially popular.

First you say (incorrectly, as it turned out) that I misrepresented Jeannette, now you reckon I'm mispreresnting Cullen - how so ?

The freeway example I gave exists a couple of blocks from my house - it certainly isn't prohibitively expensive.

I also ride down a road which has a bike lane marked like you describe - its not perfect but its perfectly serviceable if you take care.

Cars will be with us for a long time yet - hybrids, CNG cars, electric cars - to pretend otherwise is just self-delusion.

I'll bet you $100 that in 15 years time there will be more cars on the road than there are today - care to put your money where your mouth is ?

I'm all for walkable neighbourhoods and custom built bike lanes, but I don't see that these need exclude roads being built for cars. Urban planners need to design cities that cater for all forms of transport.

I initially meant you misrepresented Cullen. The quote from Cullen's speech was "...and in the cities it can carry urban commuters who are abandoning their cars." Jeanette misrepresented this with "I do not share [the view that] higher oil prices will lead to an
abandonment of the private motorcar". You used Jeanette's misrepresentation to push your own pro-car point of view, and then to (incorrectly) justify the straw man. That's how so.

The freeway isn't expensive? Do you mean it's not expensive to ride on, or not expensive to build? According to the Courier Mail, the Brisbane North-South bypass tunnel is estimated to cost $3bn. According to the PTUA, the proposed 15km East-West freeway tunnel could cost $2bn. As a tax payer these figures concern me.

Not perfect? That's an understatement. I don't know how many times I've almost been knocked off my bike. We're lucky if we even get a bike lane. Look at the infrastructure that has been established in Copenhagen (~30% trips made by bike, 40% car ownership) if you want to see what really needs to be done to support cycling.

I haven't said cars won't be with us at all, it's that their use will diminish. Almost all road transport is currently powered by oil derivatives, and with auto sales dropping rapidly a transition to any other power system is unlikely to happen before permanent economic disruptions occur. Auto makers are likely to go out of business as people are increasingly unable to buy new cars, and global finance is in upheaval.

Sure, I'll put my money where my mouth is. I suggest purchasing a gold coin worth about that much (1/10th oz). You can hold onto it. Which metric of traffic will we use? (my email address is tdauld@hotmail.com if you want to organise this offline)

"I don't see that these need exclude roads being built for cars." It's because urban space is a limited resource, and there are many competing demands on it.

I'm sorry but you have failed to show where I misrepresented Cullen - I said no such thing.

I quoted Jeanette's press release and said she was wrong.

I quoted Cullen's speech verbatim and made no comment on it other than to say he mentioned peak oil.

As for freeways - yes they are expensive but so is everything else. Adding bike lanes to them isn't expensive compared to the total cost of the road. The amount of extra land used is minor and often would go to waste anyway - people don't (as a general rule) want to live 5 metres away from the edge of the freeway.

I've enjoyed riding around Copenhagen and I note that they have roads and cars almost everywhere as well s bikes.

A 1/10th oz coin is fine for the bet - I don't need to hold it - I trust that we will settle in 15 years time.

I'd suggest the number of registered cars in Australia (as it should be easy to find out) but happy to use a global estimate if you know of a data source.

Ah. Then you misread Jeanette's statement. She was saying she does not believe the motorcar will be abandoned, as she thought Cullen did.

You also missed the point that I am against the freeway capacity for cars, not bikes. But you raise a good point - freeways adversely affect much land in proximity.

From Wikipedia on Copenhagen: "Bicycle paths are often separated from the main traffic lanes and sometimes have their own signal systems." Buildings don't move and pedestrians still need a sidewalk, so what do think must be sacrificed for the separated bike lane? Last year Copenhagen introduced a "green wave" for some of their dedicated cycle routes, restricting car flow: "Tests show that public transport benefits as well, whereas cars become slightly slower." (http://tinyurl.com/yt6p7l) From http://www.eaue.de/winuwd/175.htm: "This may include measures such as speed reductions for cars and restrictions on car parking to give room for cyclists. However, facilities along busy main roads are in my opinion the best solution for cyclists." Furthermore, real infrastructure for cyclists must come from the public purse which is limited - and so comes at the expense of other projects.

Vehicle kilometers traveled would give a more conclusive result, as we are interested in the level of road use. This data is published by the government here http://tinyurl.com/3ky6cr. Also published for the US.

Actually Jeannette seemed to be saying that Cullen said she had predicted the demise of the private motorcar:

Green Party Co-Leader Jeanette Fitzsimons says: "This is a significant turnaround from Cullen's comments to me in the House just last year that "One thing I do not share with the member, I suspect, is a view that higher oil prices will lead to an
abandonment of the private motorcar".

She didn't seem to be contesting this view.

In any case, even if she was only saying "no new road spending" (I quote "He must redirect the billions about to be flushed away on new roads into the affordable, reliable public transport system") I remain convinced that my commentary was accurate and that we can't simply stop spending on roads (though I'm all for more investment into public transport):

On a personal note I think the view that personal (car based) transport is doomed and the future will only consist of rail and other forms of public transport is rather misguided.

Neither do I have a problem with building bike specific lanes into main roads (as opposed to not building new freeways, with bike lanes running alongside them, which was what I objected to).

As for the bet, I'm happy to use vehicle km's travelled.

The most recent number (for 2003) seems to be 201,497 million.

Alright, I missed that. It doesn't necessarily confirm Jeanette's view, however, or that she believes that spending on roads should simply stop.

The salient point is that new major road works do not take peak oil into account. Their traffic projections merely extrapolate trends from recent history. They would not go ahead if projections were significantly lower. Using extreme views such as the 'abandonment of the motorcar' is not really helpful for decision making of this kind.

Disproportionate spending on auto infrastructure is an issue even without peak oil. We are discovering the vulnerability it has caused already.