Second thoughts on Park n' Rides

Previously I said that Park n' Rides, or car parks at stations were a bad idea, but the reality is we need them now and in the near future. People use them. My family uses them. Most of them are at freeway stations that are hard to walk to and offer little redevelopment opportunity anyway. But they can be improved.
For one, the concept of partly free parking and partly paid parking is a good one. However the paid bays are at the back, so those who paid are further inconvenienced by walking further, while those who got free parking also get parking close to the station, so the only way to get convenient parking is, well, to arrive early. Or at least this is the set up at Stirling train station; I haven't seen the other stations but I suspect the situation is the same. It would be better to have paid parking at the front and free parking at the back, so people can pay for the convenience of parking near the station.

The case for public transport if global warming isn’t true

While public transport is a good way to fight global warming, this is by no means the only reason to use it. Firstly, even if global warming isn’t a problem, the pollution causing it certainly is. PT uses less fuel than cars, so it also deals with peak oil.

Public transport can also move more people than cars, so they can reduce congestion and parking problems. By extension of their efficiency, PT takes up less space and requires less subsidy/is more profitable than cars, while still being cheaper, providing mobility to those who can’t or don’t drive. Many people just find it more convenient and less stressful than driving. (ABS Public Transport Use for Work and Study)

In conclusion, to say that global warming isn’t true is no reason to drive everywhere and ignore public transport.

Why free public transport isn't the answer

An idea often suggested in light of rising fares and inadequate public transport is to make it free. This is thought to increase public transport usage and make it better, fighting problems such as global warming.

While free public transport will certainly increase public transport, this will only make it more crowded, and with no revenue from it, public transport will become very expensive for the government. It is also claimed that fare collection costs a large percentage of fare revenue, so by doing away with fares we wouldn’t lose much money. However as I said before, free public transport means that more people will use it increasing costs.

Also, since free travel is not valued, some of these trips may be unnecessary and not taking cars off the road. Night services may become rolling homeless shelters, discouraging use by drivers.

In the end, the only reason why public transport needs to be free to compete with cars is because cars are heavily subsidised and our cities are optimised for them. By raising the cost of travel by car to cost-recovery, public transport-friendly suburbs will develop, allowing high-quality public transport that breaks even or even makes a profit.
However, free public transport in selected areas may be useful, as in Perth with our Free Transit Zone and CAT buses. In following with the second paragraph, the CAT buses are very useful but they can also get quite crowded, and are run from City of Perth's parking money.

The case for road pricing

Congestion charges, congestion taxes, tolls, road pricing – whatever you call it, it’s often a no-go zone for politicians – see the PublicTransport For Perth in 2031 FAQ -  even, if not especially, Liberals. You may be asking, What? Liberals? You expect them to support another tax?, but there is logic behind that statement, and road pricing is needed.

The government has been subsidising the construction of our road network for decades (rego and excise don’t even come close to paying the full costs), so we need to charge properly for the use of roads. We need to charge market rates for roads, more for congested roads and times, and less for quieter roads and times, so that roads are uncongested, benefiting people who need to be on the road, like tradies and emergency services (road-based businesses should be able to get exemptions) If it makes lots of money, so be it. We can use it for essential services, like health, education and police, or cut income tax to offset the extra cost, or even both.

We would have to make sure alternatives like public transport can take the extra load, and if need be we could make it so that half the road lanes are priced and half free, so the toll lanes can be considered express lanes.

Where does this go back to the Liberal statement? Well cutting subsidies and embracing the free market is in line with the Liberal Party’s conservative foundations.

Why electric cars aren't the answer

An often-touted solution to the pollution of cars is electric cars. However, these may not be as good for the environment as they are thought to be.
While electric cars definitely have less pollution, most of our power sources are still fossil-fuel based. Power plants are more efficient than individual engines, but it isn't enough.
Also, cars contain large amounts of steel, and their manufacture can produce pollution. The batteries also require lithium, most if which is in China and restricted, and rare earth materials like neodymium, terbium and dysprosium, and cab cause environmental damage on disposal.
Electric cars still cause congestion, and pollution from road-building. They also require a large network of charging stations to be practical, but most proposed charging stations would be located in inner-city areas, where driving distances are short and there are plenty of alternatives.
On the other hand, there are some people who will drive no matter what, so by all means, get an electric car, but don't ask for government subsidies and charging stations.