[Peakoil] Peak Oil in Crikey

[Alex Pollard]

Fares and fairness:

Ian Lowe writes: Re. "The Urbanist: should public transport be
subsidised?" (yesterday, item 13)
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/05/15/should-public-transport-be-subsidised/

Alan Davies correctly points out that public transport is subsidised and
asks why this non-means-tested benefit is given to all who use public
transport. That is a good question, but would it not be equally valid to
ask why the public purse pays for roads and makes them freely available to
all, a huge non-means-tested benefit to all who drive?

The Productivity Commission has pointed out that most of the damage to
roads is done by large freight vehicles, so taxpayers effectively
subsidise freight operators by about $30,000 per truck per year, but
nobody questions this hand-out. Every citizen pays about $180 a year to
subsidise the transport fuel used by the mining industry, inflating the
profits that largely go overseas, but the Treasurer declined to wind back
this outrageous hand-out of public funds in the Budget. If we are going to
have a debate about transport subsidies, they should all be on the table.

More broadly, we should be asking why State governments continue to pour
huge sums into road schemes that we know cannot meet the transport needs
of our cities. The WA Budget this week blew about $130 million on urban
road schemes and made no provision to build the public transport
infrastructure the city urgently needs. Melbourne has no rail link to its
airport and no plan to build one.

If we were thinking about the viability of our cites in the age beyond
peak oil, we would be rapidly investing in public transport. The obsession
with roads will put huge burdens on future generations.



Alex


O4O4873828
ACT Peak Oil Inc.